From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 00:35:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SDZBE14245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:35:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SDZ1H14219 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:35:02 +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 g1RDfLo17558 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:41:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:24:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] 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: <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 > Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make of this auction guys? Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) 1H 1N 3N 4S ? What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about my 3N bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Mar 1 00:37:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SDaqs14494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:36:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (radio.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SDagH14469 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:36:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA14492; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:26:06 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA22056; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:26:55 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228142520.00a49360@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:30:57 +0100 To: Robin Barker , GillP@bigpond.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? In-Reply-To: <200202271755.RAA25125@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:55 27/02/2002 +0000, Robin Barker wrote: >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. AG : we already have the appropriate law for X and XX : L19. So it would indeed be nice to have it for bids. >While we're at it, what about legal passes: > > Law 17.5 PASSES > > A. Legal pass > > A pass is always legal. AG : this goes a little bit far. A pass must be made in rotation, may not follow three other passes (although making such a pass is not an infraction, L35D), and sometimes you may not choose to pass (L31A1). > B. Proper form > > The only correct form is the single word "Pass" or > the two words "No bid". > AG : I don't like it at all. What if a pair uses both, in alternance ? 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 Mar 1 00:47:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SDl9w16415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:47:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SDkxH16375 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:46:59 +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 OAA11187; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:34:28 +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 OAA03507; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:37:10 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228143848.00a444e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:41:01 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Not as Enjoyable as it first looked In-Reply-To: References: <01cb01c1bf95$cde8c160$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 11:08 27/02/2002 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Peter Gill wrote: > > >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.) AG : I know one should not post to blml merely to say 'I agree', but here I'll take the liberty to say that I *do**agree* with Gordon'a analysis. And I would consider 2H over the Crashing double as 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 01:04:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SE37L19593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:03:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SE2xH19570 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:02:59 +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 16gQzh-00034z-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:53:13 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020228084457.00b18460@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:54:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Not as Enjoyable as it first looked In-Reply-To: <20020227163807-r01010800-a51a4d75-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> 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 04:08 PM 2/27/02, Ed wrote: >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"? Well, *for Encarta* it's pretty good, actually, but it's useless. If we accept it, we simply transmute the problem of definining "convention" into the problem of defining "face value"; I suspect we will find that defining either term raises essentially the same set of problems. This isn't really any different from defining "conventional" as "not natural". >If this *is* a good definition, than a bid which is understood to mean >(only?) >its face value is not a convention. Right? Right. But if we had a consensual definition of "(only?) its face value" that worked for every bid, I don't think we'd be having any trouble with "convention". 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 Mar 1 01:21:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SEHeP22081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:17:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SEHVH22053 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:17:32 +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 16gRDm-0005qD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:07:47 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020228085713.00a93920@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:08:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? In-Reply-To: <200202272207.RAA08895@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 05:07 PM 2/27/02, Steve wrote: > > 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. I find the proper form for any call in the current laws: Definitions: "Call - Any bid, double, redouble or pass." L18A: "A bid names a number of odd tricks, from one to seven, and a denomination." L18E names the five "denominations". Between them, these give us the fifteen-word "vocabulary" I learned when I first learned bridge in the 50s; the only allowable words are: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, notrump, spades, hearts, diamonds, clubs, double, redouble, pass. Holding strictly to the Law, even "no bid" is illegal unless explicity made legal via L80E. 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 Mar 1 01:46:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SEjxk27312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:45:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SEjnH27287 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:45:51 +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 4DAF7GBL; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:36:04 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228092235.02426d30@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:35:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? In-Reply-To: <0JyngFB0faf8Ew3b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <003f01c1bfa7$89a7be40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David If a bid is illegal condoning it doesn't change the legality of the bid, does it? Let's say that an insufficient bid is made, accepted, and passed out. What do have here? An illegal bid that has become a legal contract? Walt Flory At 03:45 AM 2/28/02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 01:57:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SEume29154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:56:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from groupe-decideur.com (nat-emo188.groupe-decideur.com [194.79.146.188]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g1SEucH29119 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:56:39 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200202281456.g1SEucH29119@rgb.anu.edu.au> From: "Promo Club Décideurs" To: Subject: [BLML] Votre inscription au Club des Décideurs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:47:19 +0100 Reply-To: "Promo Club Décideurs" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bonjour, J'ai le grand plaisir de vous proposer de rejoindre les 25.000 dirigeants, cadres et responsables d'entreprise qui BENEFICIENT GRATUITEMENT DE TOUS CES AVANTAGES : - Vous accédez aux dossiers de recommandations des experts du Club; - Vous consultez et/ou téléchargez plus de 150 modèles de lettres et contrats; - Vous disposez d'un puissant système de veille et d'alerte par e-mail; - Vous personnalisez la revue de presse économique en fonction de vos centres d'intérêt; - Vous publiez 3 annonces professionnelles et une annonce de recrutement; et vous profitez de nombreux autres services que je vous invite à découvrir à cette adresse : http://www.club-decideur.com/ En outre, vous pouvez référencer votre entreprise dans L'Annuaire des Décideurs et modifier vous même sa fiche de présentation à l'aide de votre code de membre. POUR VOUS INSCRIRE GRATUITEMENT : http://www.club-decideur.com/index.adml?h=5 Dès la validation de votre demande vous recevrez un e-mail comportant votre code membre du Club des Décideurs. A trés bientôt, Michel Lombard Directeur Général Le Club des Décideurs est un service du Groupe Décideur. Conformément à l'article 34 de la loi n°78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez d'un droit d'accès et de modification aux informations vous concernant auprès de la direction de Décideur.com S.A. Si vous ne souhaitez plus recevoir de messages d'information, cliquez ici : http://www.infos-decideur.com/index.adml?h=57&h_mail1=bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 02:03:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SF3Xs00509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:03:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02bw.bigpond.com (mta02bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SF3QH00491 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:03:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.78]) by mta02bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GS901C00.EAV for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:53:36 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.62 ([144.138.141.62]) by bwmam04.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 29/834152); 01 Mar 2002 00:53:32 Message-ID: <000201c1c067$ba648980$3e8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 01:51:24 +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 John MadDog Probst wrote: >Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make >of this auction guys? > >Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) >1H 1N >3N 4S ? > >What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about >my 3N bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. 6D. Guessing that pard has 6-6 or 6-5 or 5-5 in the minors. Hey, wait a minute, it's MadDog rather than me declaring, so 5D will be enough. Perhaps, to maximise declarer play, MadDog should try to get partner to bid the diamonds first, e.g. by bidding 5S or 5NT or something. :) 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 Fri Mar 1 02:14:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SFE0n02497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:14:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SFDoH02467 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:13:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA06482; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:03:14 +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 QAA16292; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:04:03 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228160253.00a059a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:08:05 +0100 To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] 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 13:24 28/02/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make of this auction >guys? > >Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) >1H 1N >3N 4S ? > >What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about my 3N >bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. AG : I'm not at ease with the subtleties of 1NT forcing, but I guess the bidding should show a sound heart raise with spade strength. About KQ10 - Axxxx - Qxx - xx. Of course, this is impossible here. In Nottingham Club, IIRC, and in other early 1NTF systems, it would show a weak hand with long spades. In Japan, who knows ? Well, when I don't understand, I pass. One of the possible explanations, of course, is a mispull. What's the link with the current thread ? Best regards, Alain. > > > > > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 >451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com >+44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 02:25:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SFOpY04295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:24:51 +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 g1SFOgH04269 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:24:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-153-158.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.153.158] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16gSGl-0000lj-00; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:14:55 +0000 Message-ID: <005b01c1c06a$629542a0$9e997ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: , "Walt Flory" References: <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <003f01c1bfa7$89a7be40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <5.1.0.14.0.20020228092235.02426d30@mail.fscv.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:12:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Walt wrote: > If a bid is illegal condoning it doesn't change the legality of the bid, > does it? > > Let's say that an insufficient bid is made, accepted, and passed out. > What do we have here? > An illegal bid that has become a legal contract? Indeed we do. No doubt the 200? Laws will have a rider in 18D to the effect that "A player must not deliberately make an insufficient bid". But it seems to me that the question of whether the Law actually forbids the deliberate making of an insufficient bid doesn't really matter. Since there is a procedure for dealing with an insufficient bid that provides ample protection and redress to the opponents, why worry about the motive that may have precipitated it? After all, it's not as if the rules of a game should be concerned with why players do things, only with what they do. Or has someone mentioned this before? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 02:46:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SFk9f08498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:46:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SFjxH08477 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 02:46:00 +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 QAA12912; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:33:28 +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 QAA22960; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:36:14 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228163613.00a3b220@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:40:15 +0100 To: Walt Flory , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228092235.02426d30@mail.fscv.net> References: <0JyngFB0faf8Ew3b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <003f01c1bfa7$89a7be40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> 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 28/02/2002 -0500, Walt Flory wrote: >David > >If a bid is illegal condoning it doesn't change the legality of the bid, >does it? > >Let's say that an insufficient bid is made, accepted, and passed out. >What do have here? >An illegal bid that has become a legal contract? AG : according to L27A-B, before the opponent decides, the insufficient bid is neither legal or illegal. It becomes either when opponent decides to condone it or not. It is thus a non-bid which has become a legal bid (and in this case a legal contract). Asking whether an insufficient bid is legal or not, at the moment it is done, is like asking whether your next child will be girl or boy, when it is not even conceived. >======================================================================== >>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Fri Mar 1 03:30:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SGUEr15748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 03:30:14 +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 ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SGU5H15728 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 03:30:06 +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 LAA10630 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:20:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA15759 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:20:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 11:20:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200202281620.LAA15759@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 > > 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, > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ Why 'sure'? Because convention cards must be filed in advance. In order to file a card, you have to agree some methods to put on it. In particular, the WBF convention card asks for meanings of all opening bids up to some fairly high level, IIRC. My original statement was badly phrased, although perhaps forgiveable in the context of the original problem which involved an opening 4C bid. The point I was trying to make was that an explanation of "undiscussed" for an opening bid would not be acceptable in a championship event. It might be acceptable in a game with pickup partnerships, although according to private email not in Canberra. > 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. Thanks for the quotation. That's very interesting. Nevertheless, I can see some difference between a player who forgets a method and a pair who fail to make agreements about common opening bids. The WBF has said that the former is at least not normally subject to penalty (although the quotation seems to say nothing of score adjustment), but I don't think they would allow the latter. Perhaps I'm wrong, though. > 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. So they are saying a psych must be treated as similar to a misbid, at least in some respects? That seems quite a good 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 Fri Mar 1 03:45:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SGjhC18087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 03:45:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from io.islandia.is (root@io.islandia.is [62.145.149.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SGjYH18063 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 03:45:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from isbridge (adsl-2-13.islandia.is [62.145.152.13]) by io.islandia.is (8.9.3-MySQL-0.2.3c+Tal/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA27964 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:45:16 GMT (envelope-from td@islandia.is) Message-ID: <002a01c1c075$ffd0b8a0$6a01a8c0@isbridge> From: "Sveinn Runar Eiriksson" To: Subject: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:35:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C1C075.EDBABF30" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C1C075.EDBABF30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi TD's and Bridge Law fans My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson and I am TD in Iceland. Last tuesday I was directing a teams tournament and I was called to a = table. Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and after claiming 8 tricks, North = suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs which he also happen to hold = in his hand. They got really confused so they called the TD. I found out that Dummy had originally had 14 cards, and the rest of the = hands had 13, and that the hand had been played thruout until the claim = when one of the defenders realised that the deck must have been flawed. I awarded an adjusted score and was lucky that declarer had 7 top tricks = in nt, so it was easy to adjust the score to 1n making 1. But as it = was Dummy who had 14 cards does that mean that both sides are = responsible, like for example if Dummy revokes there is no penalty? The = 8th trick was by the way made with the club 7 but only in the claim, it = was still tabled in dummy. Does that change anything? Law 64.B.3 = says that there is no revoke penalty for failure of following suit with = a faced card, but would similar things apply because Dummy won a trick = with a 14th card that was faced? Does that make the TD give 40% to = both sides when awarding an adjusted score? or would both sides get = 50%? or would you just adjust the tricks without changing the final = contract? In the end I gave EW procedural penalty for not counting their cards = according to law 90 and even though I was tempted I didnt jokingly imply = that I would give procedural penalty to NS for not counting dummies = cards!! Thanks Sveinn Runar Eiriksson td@islandia.is ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C1C075.EDBABF30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi TD's and Bridge Law = fans
 
My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson and I = am TD in=20 Iceland.
 
Last tuesday I was directing a teams = tournament and=20 I was called to a table.
 
Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and = after claiming=20 8 tricks, North suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs which he also = happen=20 to hold in his hand.   They got really confused so they called = the=20 TD.
 
I found out that Dummy had originally = had 14 cards,=20 and the rest of the hands had 13, and that the hand had been played = thruout=20 until the claim when one of the defenders realised that the deck must = have been=20 flawed.
 
I awarded an adjusted score and was = lucky that=20 declarer had 7 top tricks in nt, so it was easy to adjust the score to = 1n making=20 1.    But as it was Dummy who had 14 cards does that mean = that=20 both sides are responsible, like for example if Dummy revokes there is = no=20 penalty?  The 8th trick was by the way made with the club 7 but = only in the=20 claim, it was still tabled in dummy.   Does that change=20 anything?   Law 64.B.3 says that there is no revoke penalty = for=20 failure of following suit with a faced card, but would similar things = apply=20 because Dummy won a trick with a 14th card that was faced?   = Does that=20 make the TD give 40% to both sides when awarding an adjusted = score?  or=20 would both sides get 50%?  or would you just adjust the tricks = without=20 changing the final contract?
 
In the end I gave EW procedural penalty = for not=20 counting their cards according to law 90 and even though I was tempted I = didnt=20 jokingly imply that I would give procedural penalty to NS for not = counting=20 dummies cards!!
 
 
Thanks
Sveinn Runar Eiriksson
td@islandia.is
------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C1C075.EDBABF30-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 03:49:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SGnI518625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 03:49:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SGn9H18599 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 03:49:09 +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 g1RGtSo17886 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:55:28 GMT Message-ID: <6RAlK5Apzlf8EwGd@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:38:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228160253.00a059a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228160253.00a059a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020228160253.00a059a0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 13:24 28/02/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make of this auction >>guys? >> >>Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) >>1H 1N >>3N 4S ? >> >>What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about my 3N >>bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. > >AG : I'm not at ease with the subtleties of 1NT forcing, Nope, 1N was natural, we were playing basic 5cM, 15-17 NT. 4S does not exist in these methods. Back to you. >but I guess the >bidding should show a sound heart raise with spade strength. About KQ10 - >Axxxx - Qxx - xx. Of course, this is impossible here. >In Nottingham Club, IIRC, and in other early 1NTF systems, it would show a >weak hand with long spades. >In Japan, who knows ? Well, when I don't understand, I pass. This will be sensible with this partner. Are you missing anything though? > One of the >possible explanations, of course, is a mispull. Nope, 1NT was intended, as was 4S. > >What's the link with the current thread ? > It is to do with people having no idea what they're doing. I'll promise *not* to play with anyone who remotely guesses what partner's hand is. >Best regards, > > Alain. > > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >======================================================================== >> >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ >> >>-- >>John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 >>451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou >>London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com >>+44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk >>-- >>======================================================================== >>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >>A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Mar 1 03:56:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SGuHN19973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 03:56:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep04-svc.swip.net (fep04.swip.net [130.244.199.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SGu7H19954 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 03:56:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([213.101.71.55]) by fep04-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20020228164615.LJZ27837.fep04-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se>; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:46:15 +0100 Message-ID: <001e01c1c074$e278ee40$374765d5@swipnet.se> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= To: "Walt Flory" , , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <0JyngFB0faf8Ew3b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <003f01c1bfa7$89a7be40$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <20020227141158-r01010800-9f3b9a6f-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <5.1.0.14.0.20020228163613.00a3b220@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: SV: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:27:57 +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 g1SGu9H19958 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, Of course, law 72 B 2 prevents you from deliberately making an insuffient bid. Hoh ----- Ursprungligt meddelande ----- Från: "Alain Gottcheiner" Till: "Walt Flory" ; Skickat: den 28 februari 2002 16:40 Ämne: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? > At 09:35 28/02/2002 -0500, Walt Flory wrote: > >David > > > >If a bid is illegal condoning it doesn't change the legality of the bid, > >does it? > > > >Let's say that an insufficient bid is made, accepted, and passed out. > >What do have here? > >An illegal bid that has become a legal contract? > > AG : according to L27A-B, before the opponent decides, the insufficient bid > is neither legal or illegal. It becomes either when opponent decides to > condone it or not. It is thus a non-bid which has become a legal bid (and > in this case a legal contract). Asking whether an insufficient bid is legal > or not, at the moment it is done, is like asking whether your next child > will be girl or boy, when it is not even conceived. > > > > > > >======================================================================== > >>(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >>"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >>A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > > > > > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 04:10:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SHAC121745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:10:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SHA3H21731 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:10:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1351.bb.online.no [80.212.213.71]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA10000; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:00:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005601c1c079$62e2efa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228160253.00a059a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6RAlK5Apzlf8EwGd@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:00:12 +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: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > > >>Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make of this auction > >>guys? > >> > >>Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) > >>1H 1N > >>3N 4S ? > >> > >>What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about my 3N > >>bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. > > > >AG : I'm not at ease with the subtleties of 1NT forcing, > > Nope, 1N was natural, we were playing basic 5cM, 15-17 NT. 4S does not > exist in these methods. Back to you. Assuming the "standard" 1NT response showing 6-9HCP I find the lift to 3NT quite obvious, understand nothing of partners takeout in 4S and pass. If partners takeout had been to 4C or 4D I might suspect that he didn't feel fit to introduce his minor with a 2 over 1 call (less than 10HCP), but 4S makes no sense (unless he hopes you will interpret it as a giant takeout for 5C or 5D at your choice. That, however, is too artistic for me with no previous discussion or agreement) 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 Mar 1 04:29:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SHTSB24888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:29:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SHTJH24873 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:29:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1862.bb.online.no [80.212.215.70]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA28469; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:18:56 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006201c1c07c$012ba600$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Sveinn Runar Eiriksson" , References: <002a01c1c075$ffd0b8a0$6a01a8c0@isbridge> Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:18:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005F_01C1C084.60F883C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_005F_01C1C084.60F883C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Sveinn Runar Eiriksson=20 Hi TD's and Bridge Law fans My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson and I am TD in Iceland. Last tuesday I was directing a teams tournament and I was called to a = table. Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and after claiming 8 tricks, North = suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs which he also happen to hold = in his hand. They got really confused so they called the TD. I found out that Dummy had originally had 14 cards, and the rest of = the hands had 13, and that the hand had been played thruout until the = claim when one of the defenders realised that the deck must have been = flawed. my first comments: +++++++++++++ First violation has been made by East, failing to count his cards in = compliance with Law 7B1 A main question now is whether the result of the game is invalid all = together because the game has not been played with a deck of cards in = accordance with law 1. Previous discussions on this forum have concluded = that the "extra" card in East's hand is just to be removed, it is a = "foreign element", and the game played out. This solution is acceptable = if the error has not seriously influenced the game, but I am a little in = doubt if there is some impact favourable to the offending side (EW) from = the error. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I awarded an adjusted score and was lucky that declarer had 7 top = tricks in nt, so it was easy to adjust the score to 1n making 1. But = as it was Dummy who had 14 cards does that mean that both sides are = responsible, like for example if Dummy revokes there is no penalty? The = 8th trick was by the way made with the club 7 but only in the claim, it = was still tabled in dummy. Does that change anything? Law 64.B.3 = says that there is no revoke penalty for failure of following suit with = a faced card, but would similar things apply because Dummy won a trick = with a 14th card that was faced? Does that make the TD give 40% to = both sides when awarding an adjusted score? or would both sides get = 50%? or would you just adjust the tricks without changing the final = contract? Further comments: +++++++++++++ Opponents (NS) are themselves responsible for dummys cards being = "correct" to the extent that they cannot claim damage due to errors they = should have been able to notice (i.e. 14 cards). However, it is at least = my opinion that opponents cannot be held responsible for dummy to the = effect that they receive only 40% or 50% artificial adjusted score if = that should be the outcome of the board. I believe the correct ruling should have been to let them play the = board out (with the extra card removed from dummy) and then either let = the final result stand or award an assigned adjusted score depending = upon the impact of the extra card in dummys hand (as assessed by the = Director). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In the end I gave EW procedural penalty for not counting their cards = according to law 90 and even though I was tempted I didnt jokingly imply = that I would give procedural penalty to NS for not counting dummies = cards!! final comments: ++++++++++++++++ A procedural penalty to East was in order, but unless the case was a = repetition of previous negligence on law 7, i would leave it with a = warning. A procedural penalty to NS was definitely not in order. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sven ------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C1C084.60F883C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi TD's and Bridge Law = fans
 
My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson and = I am TD in=20 Iceland.
 
Last tuesday I was directing a teams = tournament=20 and I was called to a table.
 
Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and = after=20 claiming 8 tricks, North suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs = which he=20 also happen to hold in his hand.   They got really confused = so they=20 called the TD.
 
I found out that Dummy had originally = had 14=20 cards, and the rest of the hands had 13, and that the hand had been = played=20 thruout until the claim when one of the defenders realised that the = deck must=20 have been flawed.
 
my first comments: +++++++++++++
First violation has been made by East, failing to = count his=20 cards in compliance with Law 7B1
 
A main question now is whether the result of the = game is=20 invalid all together because the game has not been played with a deck = of cards=20 in accordance with law 1. Previous discussions on this forum have = concluded=20 that the "extra" card in East's hand is just to be removed, it is a = "foreign=20 element", and the game played out. This solution is acceptable if = the=20 error has not seriously influenced the game, but I am a little in = doubt if=20 there is some impact favourable to the offending side (EW) from the=20 error.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
I awarded an adjusted score and was = lucky that=20 declarer had 7 top tricks in nt, so it was easy to adjust the score to = 1n=20 making 1.    But as it was Dummy who had 14 cards does = that=20 mean that both sides are responsible, like for example if Dummy = revokes there=20 is no penalty?  The 8th trick was by the way made with the club 7 = but=20 only in the claim, it was still tabled in dummy.   Does that = change=20 anything?   Law 64.B.3 says that there is no revoke penalty = for=20 failure of following suit with a faced card, but would similar things = apply=20 because Dummy won a trick with a 14th card that was faced?   = Does=20 that make the TD give 40% to both sides when awarding an adjusted = score? =20 or would both sides get 50%?  or would you just adjust the tricks = without=20 changing the final contract?
 
Further comments: +++++++++++++
Opponents (NS) are themselves responsible for = dummys cards=20 being "correct" to the extent that they cannot claim damage due to = errors they=20 should have been able to notice (i.e. 14 cards). However, it is at = least my=20 opinion that opponents cannot be held responsible for dummy to the = effect that=20 they receive only 40% or 50% artificial adjusted score if that should = be the=20 outcome of the board.
 
I believe the correct ruling should have been to = let them=20 play the board out (with the extra card removed from dummy) and then = either=20 let the final result stand or award an assigned adjusted score = depending upon=20 the impact of the extra card in dummys hand (as assessed by the=20 Director).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
In the end I gave EW procedural = penalty for not=20 counting their cards according to law 90 and even though I was tempted = I didnt=20 jokingly imply that I would give procedural penalty to NS for not = counting=20 dummies cards!!
 
final comments: ++++++++++++++++
A procedural penalty to East was in order, but = unless the=20 case was a repetition of previous negligence on law 7, i would leave = it with a=20 warning. A procedural penalty to NS was definitely not in = order.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
Sven
------=_NextPart_000_005F_01C1C084.60F883C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 04:44:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SHiTC27632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:44:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SHiKH27607 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:44:20 +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 JAA23551; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:34:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200202281734.JAA23551@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 "Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:12:44 GMT." <005b01c1c06a$629542a0$9e997ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:34:37 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Walt wrote: > > > If a bid is illegal condoning it doesn't change the legality of the > bid, > > does it? > > > > Let's say that an insufficient bid is made, accepted, and passed out. > > What do we have here? > > An illegal bid that has become a legal contract? > > Indeed we do. No doubt the 200? Laws will have a rider in 18D to the > effect that "A player must not deliberately make an insufficient bid". > But it seems to me that the question of whether the Law actually forbids > the deliberate making of an insufficient bid doesn't really matter. > Since there is a procedure for dealing with an insufficient bid that > provides ample protection and redress to the opponents, why worry about > the motive that may have precipitated it? The motive is not important when deciding what to do after an insufficient bid occurs. However, it is important when letting players know what's expected of them. There may be some games and sports where it's considered "acceptable" or "part of the game" to deliberately violate the rules every now and then, hoping you can get away with it; but bridge isn't played that way, and I think very few if any would want it to be played like that. Given that, it's important to let players know whether an insufficient bid is "a violation of the rules that you must not do" or "a tactic that could gain if your LHO decides it's to his advantage to accept it but otherwise will not gain you anything and will probably harm your side". Also, L72B2 is on the books, and it says a player must not infringe a law intentionally. This Law doesn't carry any penalty of its own, but I believe that if someone is found to be repeatedly violating this, he could face disciplinary penalties or C&E sanctions or something. So for this purpose also, it does make a difference whether a deliberate insufficient bid is a violation of L72B2. -- 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 Mar 1 04:55:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SHtI329689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:55:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SHt7H29668 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:55:08 +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 RAA26861 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:45:15 GMT To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.07a May 14, 2001 Message-ID: From: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:45:14 +0100 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Jazz/Meteo-France/FR(Release 5.0.8 |June 18, 2001) at 28.02.2002 17:45:14, Serialize complete at 28.02.2002 17:45:14 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 g1SHtBH29678 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" Envoyé par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au 28/02/02 17:38 Pour : bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au cc : Objet : Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020228160253.00a059a0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 13:24 28/02/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >>Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make of this auction >>guys? >> >>Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) >>1H 1N >>3N 4S ? >> >>What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about my 3N >>bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. > >AG : I'm not at ease with the subtleties of 1NT forcing, Nope, 1N was natural, we were playing basic 5cM, 15-17 NT. 4S does not exist in these methods. Back to you. >but I guess the >bidding should show a sound heart raise with spade strength. About KQ10 - >Axxxx - Qxx - xx. Of course, this is impossible here. >In Nottingham Club, IIRC, and in other early 1NTF systems, it would show a >weak hand with long spades. >In Japan, who knows ? Well, when I don't understand, I pass. This will be sensible with this partner. Are you missing anything though? > One of the >possible explanations, of course, is a mispull. Nope, 1NT was intended, as was 4S. > >What's the link with the current thread ? > It is to do with people having no idea what they're doing. I'll promise *not* to play with anyone who remotely guesses what partner's hand is. *** if 1NT is not forcing and partner not insane, I think this japanese lady used the classical ploy to answer 1NT instead of 1S with something like 4126 or 4162, in order to avoid an impossible rebid at her second turn after 1H 1S 2m. I will guess to pass 4S, i guess her minor to be clubs, and her hand, as you asked for it: QJxx,-,xx,KJxxxxx jp rocafort *** >Best regards, > > Alain. > -- 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 -- __________________________________________________ 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 Mar 1 05:00:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SI0Gp00668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 05:00:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.minfod.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SI01H00627 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 05:00:08 +1100 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:53:29 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21C6@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 12:53:27 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dummy (East) started the hand holding 13 cards plus a foreign object. Although that object may have looked remarkably like a club 7 it was not a part of the legal deck of 52 cards. Once noticed, it should be removed as soon as possible. Since the foreign object was never "played" to a trick there are no defective tricks to be dealt with. That would have made things much more complicated. Declarers claim to take a trick with a foreign object is, of course, faulty. I will accept the adudication of the claim (1NT making) as reasonable, since I don't have any facts to dispute it. A procedural penalty for not counting cards seems incorrect. East did, in fact, have exactly 13 cards in his hand. Perhaps an equivalent penalty for introducing a cleverly disguised foreign object into the game. :-) Sounds like you got this one right! -----Original Message----- From: Sveinn Runar Eiriksson To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: 2/28/02 11:35 AM Subject: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards Hi TD's and Bridge Law fans My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson and I am TD in Iceland. Last tuesday I was directing a teams tournament and I was called to a table. Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and after claiming 8 tricks, North suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs which he also happen to hold in his hand. They got really confused so they called the TD. I found out that Dummy had originally had 14 cards, and the rest of the hands had 13, and that the hand had been played thruout until the claim when one of the defenders realised that the deck must have been flawed. I awarded an adjusted score and was lucky that declarer had 7 top tricks in nt, so it was easy to adjust the score to 1n making 1. But as it was Dummy who had 14 cards does that mean that both sides are responsible, like for example if Dummy revokes there is no penalty? The 8th trick was by the way made with the club 7 but only in the claim, it was still tabled in dummy. Does that change anything? Law 64.B.3 says that there is no revoke penalty for failure of following suit with a faced card, but would similar things apply because Dummy won a trick with a 14th card that was faced? Does that make the TD give 40% to both sides when awarding an adjusted score? or would both sides get 50%? or would you just adjust the tricks without changing the final contract? In the end I gave EW procedural penalty for not counting their cards according to law 90 and even though I was tempted I didnt jokingly imply that I would give procedural penalty to NS for not counting dummies cards!! Thanks Sveinn Runar Eiriksson td@islandia.is -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 05:07:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SI7X601981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 05:07:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from io.islandia.is (root@io.islandia.is [62.145.149.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SI7MH01943 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 05:07:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from isbridge (adsl-2-13.islandia.is [62.145.152.13]) by io.islandia.is (8.9.3-MySQL-0.2.3c+Tal/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA05799 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:07:06 GMT (envelope-from td@islandia.is) Message-ID: <008201c1c081$6d38d5c0$6a01a8c0@isbridge> From: "Sveinn Runar Eiriksson" To: Subject: Re:[BLML] Incorrect number of cards Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 17:57:14 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007D_01C1C081.5A9AC090" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_007D_01C1C081.5A9AC090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sveinn Runar Eiriksson=20 To: Sven Pran=20 Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards hi Sven and others... Law 13 When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board = contained and incorrect number of cards, if a player with an incorrect = number of cards has made a call, the Director shall award an artificial = adjusted score, and may penalize an offender. If no suck call has been = made then: There seems to no route outside awarding an artificial adjusted score? = Which takes out the possibility of taking the card away and letting the = play continue, but then, in the example given, declarer had claimed. but lets say that the board was correct, but the card was left on the = table and then mixed into Dummy, would that change this law in any way? thx Sveinn Runar Eiriksson td@islandia.is ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Sven Pran=20 To: Sveinn Runar Eiriksson ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards From: Sveinn Runar Eiriksson=20 Hi TD's and Bridge Law fans My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson and I am TD in Iceland. Last tuesday I was directing a teams tournament and I was called to = a table. Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and after claiming 8 tricks, North = suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs which he also happen to hold = in his hand. They got really confused so they called the TD. I found out that Dummy had originally had 14 cards, and the rest of = the hands had 13, and that the hand had been played thruout until the = claim when one of the defenders realised that the deck must have been = flawed. =20 my first comments: +++++++++++++ First violation has been made by East, failing to count his cards in = compliance with Law 7B1 =20 A main question now is whether the result of the game is invalid all = together because the game has not been played with a deck of cards in = accordance with law 1. Previous discussions on this forum have concluded = that the "extra" card in East's hand is just to be removed, it is a = "foreign element", and the game played out. This solution is acceptable = if the error has not seriously influenced the game, but I am a little in = doubt if there is some impact favourable to the offending side (EW) from = the error. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I awarded an adjusted score and was lucky that declarer had 7 top = tricks in nt, so it was easy to adjust the score to 1n making 1. But = as it was Dummy who had 14 cards does that mean that both sides are = responsible, like for example if Dummy revokes there is no penalty? The = 8th trick was by the way made with the club 7 but only in the claim, it = was still tabled in dummy. Does that change anything? Law 64.B.3 = says that there is no revoke penalty for failure of following suit with = a faced card, but would similar things apply because Dummy won a trick = with a 14th card that was faced? Does that make the TD give 40% to = both sides when awarding an adjusted score? or would both sides get = 50%? or would you just adjust the tricks without changing the final = contract? =20 Further comments: +++++++++++++ Opponents (NS) are themselves responsible for dummys cards being = "correct" to the extent that they cannot claim damage due to errors they = should have been able to notice (i.e. 14 cards). However, it is at least = my opinion that opponents cannot be held responsible for dummy to the = effect that they receive only 40% or 50% artificial adjusted score if = that should be the outcome of the board. =20 I believe the correct ruling should have been to let them play the = board out (with the extra card removed from dummy) and then either let = the final result stand or award an assigned adjusted score depending = upon the impact of the extra card in dummys hand (as assessed by the = Director). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ =20 In the end I gave EW procedural penalty for not counting their cards = according to law 90 and even though I was tempted I didnt jokingly imply = that I would give procedural penalty to NS for not counting dummies = cards!! =20 final comments: ++++++++++++++++ A procedural penalty to East was in order, but unless the case was a = repetition of previous negligence on law 7, i would leave it with a = warning. A procedural penalty to NS was definitely not in order. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ =20 Sven ------=_NextPart_000_007D_01C1C081.5A9AC090 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Sveinn Runar = Eiriksson=20
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards

hi Sven and others...
 
Law 13
 
When the Director determines that one = or more=20 pockets of the board contained and incorrect number of cards, if a = player with=20 an incorrect number of cards has made a call, the Director shall award = an=20 artificial adjusted score, and may penalize an offender.  If no = suck call=20 has been made then:
 
There seems to no route outside = awarding an=20 artificial adjusted score?   Which takes out the possibility = of taking=20 the card away and letting the play continue,  but then, in the = example=20 given, declarer had claimed.
 
but lets say that the board was = correct, but the=20 card was left on the table and then mixed into Dummy,  would that = change=20 this law in any way?
 
thx
Sveinn Runar Eiriksson
td@islandia.is
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Sven = Pran=20
To: Sveinn Runar Eiriksson ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Sent: Thursday, February 28, = 2002 5:18=20 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect = number of=20 cards

Hi TD's and Bridge Law = fans
 
My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson = and I am TD=20 in Iceland.
 
Last tuesday I was directing a = teams tournament=20 and I was called to a table.
 
Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and = after=20 claiming 8 tricks, North suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs = which he=20 also happen to hold in his hand.   They got really = confused so=20 they called the TD.
 
I found out that Dummy had = originally had 14=20 cards, and the rest of the hands had 13, and that the hand had been = played=20 thruout until the claim when one of the defenders realised that the = deck=20 must have been flawed.
 
my first comments: +++++++++++++
First violation has been made by East, failing = to count=20 his cards in compliance with Law 7B1
 
A main question now is whether the result of the = game is=20 invalid all together because the game has not been played with a = deck of=20 cards in accordance with law 1. Previous discussions on this forum = have=20 concluded that the "extra" card in East's hand is just to be = removed, it is=20 a "foreign element", and the game played out. This solution is=20 acceptable if the error has not seriously influenced the game, but I = am a=20 little in doubt if there is some impact favourable to the offending = side=20 (EW) from the error.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
I awarded an adjusted score and was = lucky that=20 declarer had 7 top tricks in nt, so it was easy to adjust the score = to 1n=20 making 1.    But as it was Dummy who had 14 cards = does that=20 mean that both sides are responsible, like for example if Dummy = revokes=20 there is no penalty?  The 8th trick was by the way made with = the club 7=20 but only in the claim, it was still tabled in dummy.   = Does that=20 change anything?   Law 64.B.3 says that there is no revoke = penalty=20 for failure of following suit with a faced card, but would similar = things=20 apply because Dummy won a trick with a 14th card that was = faced?  =20 Does that make the TD give 40% to both sides when awarding an = adjusted=20 score?  or would both sides get 50%?  or would you just = adjust the=20 tricks without changing the final contract?
 
Further comments: +++++++++++++
Opponents (NS) are themselves responsible for = dummys cards=20 being "correct" to the extent that they cannot claim damage due to = errors=20 they should have been able to notice (i.e. 14 cards). However, it is = at=20 least my opinion that opponents cannot be held responsible for dummy = to the=20 effect that they receive only 40% or 50% artificial adjusted score = if that=20 should be the outcome of the board.
 
I believe the correct ruling should have been to = let them=20 play the board out (with the extra card removed from dummy) and then = either=20 let the final result stand or award an assigned adjusted score = depending=20 upon the impact of the extra card in dummys hand (as assessed by the = Director).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
In the end I gave EW procedural = penalty for not=20 counting their cards according to law 90 and even though I was = tempted I=20 didnt jokingly imply that I would give procedural penalty to NS for = not=20 counting dummies cards!!
 
final comments: ++++++++++++++++
A procedural penalty to East was in order, but = unless the=20 case was a repetition of previous negligence on law 7, i would leave = it with=20 a warning. A procedural penalty to NS was definitely not in=20 order.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
Sven
------=_NextPart_000_007D_01C1C081.5A9AC090-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 05:18:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SIIQU03854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 05:18:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SIIHH03827 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 05:18:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3052.bb.online.no [80.212.219.236]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA10200 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:08:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <009501c1c082$edb61860$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:08:30 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0092_01C1C08B.4F4825C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0092_01C1C08B.4F4825C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi Sven and others... Law 13 When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board = contained and incorrect number of cards, if a player with an incorrect = number of cards has made a call, the Director shall award an artificial = adjusted score, and may penalize an offender. If no such call has been = made then: There seems to no route outside awarding an artificial adjusted score? = Which takes out the possibility of taking the card away and letting = the play continue, but then, in the example given, declarer had = claimed. but lets say that the board was correct, but the card was left on the = table and then mixed into Dummy, would that change this law in any way? my comments (I wonder where that nasty line in the left margin comes = from, it just disturbs the mesage?): My personal opinion was (and is) that the game has been played with a = deck of cards that doesn't comply with the specifications in Law 1 (and = dealt according to Law 6), and that the result therefore should be = cancelled (and replaced with an artificial adjusted score). And in my opinion it makes little difference how that extra card = entered the pack as long as it has been used as part of the pack during = at least some of the auction and play. Note that it is really not important whether the card had previously = been left on the table or not, Law 13 leaves it to the Director to = "determine" that the extra card was contained in one of the pockets if = he selects to rule that way. (Of course he cannot "determine" against = undisputable proof, but whenever there is reasonable doubt it is up to = him) I found myself a minority. The majority stated that the extra card did = not belong to the pack, it was a foreign element that had been mixed in, = and as such should simply be removed again.=20 regards Sven ------=_NextPart_000_0092_01C1C08B.4F4825C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
hi Sven and others...
 
Law 13
 
When the Director determines that one = or more=20 pockets of the board contained and incorrect number of cards, if a = player with=20 an incorrect number of cards has made a call, the Director shall award = an=20 artificial adjusted score, and may penalize an offender.  If no = such call=20 has been made then:
 
There seems to no route outside = awarding an=20 artificial adjusted score?   Which takes out the possibility = of=20 taking the card away and letting the play continue,  but then, in = the=20 example given, declarer had claimed.
 
but lets say that the board was = correct, but the=20 card was left on the table and then mixed into Dummy,  would that = change=20 this law in any way?
 
my comments (I wonder where that nasty line in the = left=20 margin comes from, it just disturbs the=20 mesage?):
 
My personal opinion was (and is) that the game has = been=20 played with a deck of cards that doesn't comply with the = specifications in Law=20 1 (and dealt according to Law 6), and that the result therefore should = be=20 cancelled (and replaced with an artificial adjusted score).
 
And in my opinion it makes little difference how = that extra=20 card entered the pack as long as it has been used as part of the pack = during=20 at least some of the auction and play.
 
Note that it is really not important whether the = card had=20 previously been left on the table or not, Law 13 leaves it to the = Director to=20 "determine" that the extra card was contained in one of the pockets if = he=20 selects to rule that way. (Of course he cannot "determine" against=20 undisputable proof, but whenever there is reasonable doubt it is up to = him)
 
I found myself a minority. The majority stated = that the=20 extra card did not belong to the pack, it was a foreign element that = had been=20 mixed in, and as such should simply be removed again.
 
regards = Sven
------=_NextPart_000_0092_01C1C08B.4F4825C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 06:09:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SJ95A12907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:09:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx04.nexgo.de (mx04.nexgo.de [151.189.8.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SJ8uH12879 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 06:08:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-212-144-143-220.arcor-ip.net [212.144.143.220]) by mx04.nexgo.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 23A6B37B3D for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:59:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00bb01c1c08a$cca575a0$dc8f90d4@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020228160253.00a059a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <6RAlK5Apzlf8EwGd@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 19:12:33 +0100 Organization: rabbits, rrabbit, r_rabbits MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020228160253.00a059a0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain > Gottcheiner writes > >At 13:24 28/02/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > > >>Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make of this auction > >>guys? > >> > >>Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) > >>1H 1N > >>3N 4S ? > >> > >>What do you now bid with AKx > >> AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about my 3N > >>bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. Probably short spades, but what else? > >AG : I'm not at ease with the subtleties of 1NT forcing, > > Nope, 1N was natural, we were playing basic 5cM, 15-17 NT. 4S does not > exist in these methods. Back to you. I guess I'll just bid 5D because I have D, and I then let partner do the worrying ;-). Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 07:12:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SKBal25542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:11:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SKBPH25510 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 07:11:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d268.iae.nl [212.61.5.14]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 97EEC21C18 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:00:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00b401c1c092$6ec8dbe0$0e053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Overall Score [was: Scoring Problem] Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:58:29 +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 If you go to a tournament you accept the conditions: - different boards per group, - different levels per group, - overall scoring, - but the same price for the coffe and beer There is a ranking! Keep it simple. Who knows, who cares? Not fair? If somebody cares he should go elsewhere if available. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: ; Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 2:27 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Overall Score [was: Scoring Problem] > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 08:20:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SLJVx07424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:19:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f73.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SLJNH07404 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:19:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:09:33 -0800 Received: from 172.174.186.57 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 21:09:32 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.174.186.57] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:09:32 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2002 21:09:33.0233 (UTC) FILETIME=[3822F210:01C1C09C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes, the ACBL doesn't run swiss pairs matches that I've seen yet. However, giving it a moderate amount of thought, I'm even less concerned about how to score a sitout in swiss pairs where the matchings are made each round. With exception to small fields and a large number of rounds (where you might as well run a normal movement with a ghost pair) and the first round (where you'll have to guess), there is always a pair in the bottom 50% to have sitout. I don't think there need be much concern about the score given them. -Todd >From: David Stevenson >Reply-To: David Stevenson >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem >Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 03:40:44 +0000 > >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/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 1 08:51:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SLpS713443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:51:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SLpJH13421 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:51:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0471.bb.online.no [80.212.209.215]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA13792; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:41:27 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00c001c1c0a0$acee8e20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ben Schelen" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <015901c1bf8b$6dbdd000$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <010901c1c064$73d9ca00$84053dd4@b0e7g1> <001901c1c06f$ca2f87e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00b201c1c092$6d3f2ea0$0e053dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:41:26 +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: "Ben Schelen" ....... > > > > 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). > > > > > > BS: not a score but a COMPENSATION for ranking and this > > > compensation has nothing to do with L88. > > > It is up to the SO to fix the compensation. > > > > Honestly, this is beginning to sound ridiculously to me. ....... > > 2:Please explain the difference between a compensation and an > > artificial adjusted score > > As everybody tries to explain to you, you can only get an AS on a board > when there is a irregularity during the play of that board. > A compensation is a indemnification given to a pair that paid for the > tournament but could not play during one round. > Moreover that compensation is given in order not to disturb the ranking; as > the ranking is used to determine the position in the next round according to > strength. > The compensation is held for the final ranking as you do with your AS. > > The solution is not to mention the word AS but to replace it with another > nice word. I have for a long time understood all those arguments, and to be frank, at the best I consider them nothing more than technicatlities with no practical merits. But if we are going to be technical I could like to be technical myself: A pair participating in a tournament shows up expecting to play the number of scheduled boards as announced, to them a walk-over (or "sit-out") is an irregularity. They are there to play bridge, not to sit out. Law12A2 gives the Director the authority to award artificial adjusted score when normal play of the board is impossible. ".....if no rectification can be made ....". Rectification of what? A missing pair (resulting in a walk-over or "sit-out")? That the board has been destroyed beyond restoration? That the board is unavailable for whatever reason? That too much unauthorized information is available? (sure!) etc. etc. Law12A2 does not state that the reason must be some irregularity or violation of any of the paragraphs in the book, it just talks about rectification of a condition (without any specification) that prevents normal play of the board. And please note (being more technical) that Law12A2 refers directly to law88, it does not imply Law12C1 which specifically handles the cases where adjusted scores are awarded because of irregularities. Law12A2 can thus very well be interpreted that the Director may award artificial adjusted score to participants that cannot play the board in a normal way because it is impossible to find them opponents - whether this is according to some schedule or not. (I'm not saying that is the intention of the law, I say that is a possible interpretation when you read it carefully) By the way, as I have previously pointed out, the definition of artificial adjusted score uses "irregularity" as an example of reasons for awarding artificial adjusted score, but in a context where it should be apparent that this is not meant as a required condition, it is only one example. One argument was "fine, let them have 60% of what they could obtain. Because they were scheduled not to play that board they could not obtain any score, so 60% is still zero". This argument had better be bypassed in silence, but I believe nobody would argue against when Law88 says: "60% of the matchpoints available to him" it is understood: "if the board were played normally with no irregularity of any kind". So now we are left with a suggestion that in order to avoid the use of the term "artificial adjusted score" in a position where nobody any longer seem to disagree that some kind of score _must_ be awarded, this score should rather than artificial adjusted score be named "compensation", a term that is completely unknown in the laws. For what purpose? Prestige? 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 Mar 1 09:03:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SM3Pt15576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:03:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SM3FH15551 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:03:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0845.bb.online.no [80.212.211.77]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA23936; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:53:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00c601c1c0a2$56222dc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:53:20 +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 From: "Todd Zimnoch" > Yes, the ACBL doesn't run swiss pairs matches that I've seen yet. > However, giving it a moderate amount of thought, I'm even less concerned > about how to score a sitout in swiss pairs where the matchings are made each > round. With exception to small fields and a large number of rounds (where > you might as well run a normal movement with a ghost pair) and the first > round (where you'll have to guess), there is always a pair in the bottom 50% > to have sitout. I don't think there need be much concern about the score > given them. > > -Todd Disastrous ignorance. For practical reasons the first two rounds are always preassigned (randomly). Ever so often we see two strong pairs meeting each other in one of those rounds, and because they both start at scratch one of them may be sent right down to sit out in round three. (Everybody can have a bad round). Nothing prevents both pairs to end up in a prize position when the tournament is completed. In fact last year I was sent right down to the walk-over table in round three in a tournament with 20 tables. After 16 rounds I ended up ranked 6 with a very close margin to advance even further up the list. And before you ask: We have a condition that the number of rounds shall be between 25% and 50% of the number of 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 Fri Mar 1 09:24:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SMMhc17905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:22:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SMMaH17891 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:22:36 +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 JAA17245 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:24:50 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:11:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:06:35 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/03/2002 09:11:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: [big snip] >The point I was trying to make was that an explanation of >"undiscussed" for an opening bid would not be acceptable in a >championship event. It might be acceptable in a game with pickup >partnerships, although according to private email not in Canberra. [big snip] I would like to make a fine distinction here. The Canberra reg is: "It is implicit in the Laws that players know their own system." But the Canberra reg does not imply that players must have a _comprehensive_ system. I know of many championship players who would reply "undiscussed" to their partner's opening bid of 5NT. 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 Mar 1 10:05:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SN51Q25551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:05:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f138.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g1SN4qH25524 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:04:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:55:02 -0800 Received: from 172.174.186.57 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:55:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.174.186.57] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 14:55:02 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Feb 2002 22:55:02.0941 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4EFBCD0:01C1C0AA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Luck happens, *shrug*, but in this imperfect movement, any reasonable assignment (50%, ave+, or session score to be determined after the event ends (which is probably the only way to assign less than 50% without much protest)) is unlikely to affect the results in most contests. Choosing from the bottom up is a way to try to maximize the odds that the assigned score becomes meaningless. It shouldn't be a cause for concern. I would be far more concerned about the score assigned when the sitout cannot be manipulated. Also, locally, I haven't seen a 1/2 table at a tournament nor club game in over 2 years. The club owner keeps a list of people that live within 10 minutes to fill in a movement and kibitzers are encouraged to fill out pairs movements at tournaments. This avoids the problem outright. -Todd >From: "Sven Pran" >To: "Todd Zimnoch" , >Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem >Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:53:20 +0100 > >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > > Yes, the ACBL doesn't run swiss pairs matches that I've seen yet. > > However, giving it a moderate amount of thought, I'm even less concerned > > about how to score a sitout in swiss pairs where the matchings are made >each > > round. With exception to small fields and a large number of rounds >(where > > you might as well run a normal movement with a ghost pair) and the first > > round (where you'll have to guess), there is always a pair in the bottom >50% > > to have sitout. I don't think there need be much concern about the >score > > given them. > > > > -Todd > >Disastrous ignorance. > >For practical reasons the first two rounds are always preassigned >(randomly). >Ever so often we see two strong pairs meeting each other in one of those >rounds, >and because they both start at scratch one of them may be sent right down >to >sit out in round three. (Everybody can have a bad round). Nothing prevents >both >pairs to end up in a prize position when the tournament is completed. In >fact >last year I was sent right down to the walk-over table in round three in a >tournament with 20 tables. After 16 rounds I ended up ranked 6 with a very >close margin to advance even further up the list. > >And before you ask: We have a condition that the number of rounds shall be >between 25% and 50% of the number of 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/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Mar 1 10:43:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SNh8Z01646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:43:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g1SNgwH01616 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:42:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2636.bb.online.no [80.212.218.76]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA04340; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:32:56 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <011001c1c0b0$3ff9d800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 00:32:55 +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: "Todd Zimnoch" > Luck happens, *shrug*, but in this imperfect movement, any reasonable > assignment (50%, ave+, or session score to be determined after the event > ends (which is probably the only way to assign less than 50% without much > protest)) is unlikely to affect the results in most contests. Choosing from > the bottom up is a way to try to maximize the odds that the assigned score > becomes meaningless. ????? I have absolutely no idea what you mean? But in case you have the allocation of seats in mind: For each round the computer selects for table 1 the leading pair together with the highest ranked pair they have not yet met. Similar for table 2 (among the remaining pairs), similar for table 3 and so on way down, except that changes to this rule are made as neccessary to avoid having pairs meet more than once. > It shouldn't be a cause for concern. I would be far more concerned > about the score assigned when the sitout cannot be manipulated. manipulated in what way ????? > Also, locally, I haven't seen a 1/2 table at a tournament nor club game > in over 2 years. The club owner keeps a list of people that live within 10 > minutes to fill in a movement and kibitzers are encouraged to fill out pairs > movements at tournaments. This avoids the problem outright. The fact that some clubs never face this problem is no argument for avoiding having rules covering the situation. 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 Mar 1 10:58:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g1SNvm504346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:57:48 +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 g1SNvdH04324 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:57:39 +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 KAA00520; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:59:50 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 10:46:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] To: "GillP::.gov.au":"bigpond.com:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 10:39:46 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 01/03/2002 10:46:34 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> 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. It seems to me that there is another reason that the NSW (=Sydney) CC's, and the NSW regulations, are inadequate. Neither the CC nor the regs mention the ABF (=National) rule requiring Pre-Alerts of unexpected methods. 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 Mar 1 11:06:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2106Mb05903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:06:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2106DH05877 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:06:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.32.229] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gaPR-000Nzq-00; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:56:26 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c1c0b3$f7fb3900$e520e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200202281734.JAA23551@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 23:56:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? > > Also, L72B2 is on the books, and it says a player must not > infringe a law intentionally. This Law doesn't carry any > penalty of its own, but I believe that if someone is found to > be repeatedly violating this, he could face disciplinary > penalties or C&E sanctions or something. So for this > purpose also, it does make a difference whether a > deliberate insufficient bid is a violation of L72B2. > > -- Adam > -- +=+ Law 74A3 is also on the books. ~ 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 Mar 1 13:01:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2120xa28668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:00:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2120nH28634 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:00:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g211owM08641; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:50:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:48:58 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <0JyngFB0faf8Ew3b@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20020228205103-r01010800-092c2982-0904-0109@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 3:45 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) 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. That is the conclusion to which I came. :-) 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 Mar 1 15:05:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21451h20492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:05:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05bw.bigpond.com (mta05bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2144rH20479 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:04:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from master.bigpond.net.au ([144.135.24.75]) by mta05bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GSA07R00.JEF for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:55:03 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-137-72-5.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.72.5]) by bwmam03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 20/2400296); 01 Mar 2002 13:55:03 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020301145216.02258af0@bigpond.net.au> X-Sender: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 14:54:53 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] In-Reply-To: <000201c1c067$ba648980$3e8d8a90@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 01:51 AM 1/03/02 +1100, you wrote: >John MadDog Probst wrote: > >Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make > >of this auction guys? > > > >Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) > >1H 1N > >3N 4S ? > > > >What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about > >my 3N bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. Partner has Jxxxxxx, ---, Jxx, Axxx I've played with her twin. I opened 1S and partner felt it important to show her points first. 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 Mar 1 15:14:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g214DqU21654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:13:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g214DgH21632 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:13:43 +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 g1S4K2o19296 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:20:02 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:02:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , jean- pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" >Envoyé par : owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >28/02/02 17:38 > > > Pour : bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > cc : > Objet : Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] > > >In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020228160253.00a059a0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain >Gottcheiner writes >>At 13:24 28/02/2002 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> >>>Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make of this auction >>>guys? >>> >>>Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) >>>1H 1N >>>3N 4S ? >>> >>>What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about my 3N >>>bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. >> >>AG : I'm not at ease with the subtleties of 1NT forcing, > >Nope, 1N was natural, we were playing basic 5cM, 15-17 NT. 4S does not >exist in these methods. Back to you. > >>but I guess the >>bidding should show a sound heart raise with spade strength. About KQ10 >- >>Axxxx - Qxx - xx. Of course, this is impossible here. >>In Nottingham Club, IIRC, and in other early 1NTF systems, it would show >a >>weak hand with long spades. >>In Japan, who knows ? Well, when I don't understand, I pass. > >This will be sensible with this partner. Are you missing anything >though? >> One of the >>possible explanations, of course, is a mispull. > >Nope, 1NT was intended, as was 4S. >> >>What's the link with the current thread ? >> > It is to do with people having no idea what they're doing. I'll promise >*not* to play with anyone who remotely guesses what partner's hand is. > >*** >if 1NT is not forcing and partner not insane, I think this japanese lady >used the classical ploy to answer 1NT instead of 1S with something like >4126 or 4162, in order to avoid an impossible rebid at her second turn >after 1H 1S 2m. I will guess to pass 4S, i guess her minor to be clubs, >and her hand, as you asked for it: >QJxx,-,xx,KJxxxxx > We're getting close here. I guessed she'd got 5 or 6 spades and a completely minimum 1NT response. Qxxxx(x) x x Kxxxx(x). She actually held Q10xxxx x - Axxxxx. However after she'd finished with the hand it made only 11 tricks, so I was right to pass :) I just thought the hand was interesting in that one should never assume *anything* about what LHO, RHO or CHO are thinking when they make a call. cheers john >jp rocafort >*** > >>Best regards, >> >> Alain. >> > -- 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 Mar 1 15:19:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g214JDq22284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:19:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g214J4H22257 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:19:05 +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 g1S4POo19303 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:25:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:07:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards References: <002a01c1c075$ffd0b8a0$6a01a8c0@isbridge> In-Reply-To: <002a01c1c075$ffd0b8a0$6a01a8c0@isbridge> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002a01c1c075$ffd0b8a0$6a01a8c0@isbridge>, Sveinn Runar Eiriksson writes > Hi TD's and Bridge Law fans >   > My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson and I am TD in Iceland. >   > Last tuesday I was directing a teams tournament and I was called to > a table. >   > Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and after claiming 8 tricks, North > suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs which he also happen to > hold in his hand.   They got really confused so they called the TD. >   > I found out that Dummy had originally had 14 cards, and the rest of > the hands had 13, and that the hand had been played thruout until > the claim when one of the defenders realised that the deck must > have been flawed. >   I would have cancelled the board and awarded the defenders 60% and declarer 40%. Your ruling is practical, and in a club game eminently sensible, even if IMO illegal. PS and give Thorfinnson my regards (He played at the YC in London a bit, a few years ago) cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 15:22:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g214Ltg22778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:21:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g214LjH22755 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:21:46 +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 g1S4S5o19307 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 04:28:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 04:10:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] References: <000201c1c067$ba648980$3e8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020301145216.02258af0@bigpond.net.au> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020301145216.02258af0@bigpond.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020301145216.02258af0@bigpond.net.au>, Tony Musgrove writes >At 01:51 AM 1/03/02 +1100, you wrote: > >>John MadDog Probst wrote: >> >Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make >> >of this auction guys? >> > >> >Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) >> >1H 1N >> >3N 4S ? >> > >> >What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about >> >my 3N bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. > >Partner has Jxxxxxx, ---, Jxx, Axxx > >I've played with her twin. I opened 1S and partner felt it important to >show her points first. > Tony, that's close enough. Well done! I promise never to play with you (ask anyone who has and they will explain!) Qxxxxx x - Axxxxx cheers john >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/ -- 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 Mar 1 18:56:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g217tWi29812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:55:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g217tMH29808 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 18:55:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1706.bb.online.no [80.212.214.170]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA07840; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:45:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002501c1c0f5$1057e200$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "Tony Musgrove" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020301145216.02258af0@bigpond.net.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 08:45:24 +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 From: "Tony Musgrove" > > >Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make > > >of this auction guys? > > > > > >Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) > > >1H 1N > > >3N 4S ? > > > > > >What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about > > >my 3N bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. > > Partner has Jxxxxxx, ---, Jxx, Axxx > > I've played with her twin. I opened 1S and partner felt it important to > show her points first. And what strength did she believe would be shown with a 1S bid over your 1H? In my book any response bid below 1NT over an opening bid of 1 may be down to 6HCP. The response of 1NT denies any 4-card suit that could be bid at the 1-level. One of the first things we teach in the beginners scool on bridge isn't it? At least I'm glad I suggested pass over 4S 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 Mar 1 19:19:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g218JBO29843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:19:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g218J3H29839 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:19:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47580.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.220]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2189B816748 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:09:11 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C7F3747.8050900@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:09:43 +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: "BLML >> Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <015901c1bf8b$6dbdd000$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <010901c1c064$73d9ca00$84053dd4@b0e7g1> <001901c1c06f$ca2f87e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00b201c1c092$6d3f2ea0$0e053dd4@b0e7g1> <00c001c1c0a0$acee8e20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Come off it, Sven, you're clutching at straws. What are you trying to prove, actually ? That the Norwegian regulations are within the bounds of legality ? No need, we've never argued they weren't. That the Norwegian regulations are fair ? No need, you won't convince me. That all other regulations are against the Laws ? Do you really believe that you alone (and all Norwegians) have the true grasp of the English language enabling you to see the truth where all others are in the wilderness. Even if that were so - why do you believe that you'll convince the world to change from sensible regulations to less fair ones ? Stop it. Please. Sven Pran wrote: [snip]> -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 1 19:26:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g218Q1v29855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:26:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g218PqH29851 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:25:53 +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 g218G1c18423 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 09:16:01 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 01 09:12:38 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KEUAI2SIIC00111V@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:15:04 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:14:48 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 09:15:02 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? To: "'Alain Gottcheiner'" , Walt Flory , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > At 09:35 28/02/2002 -0500, Walt Flory wrote: > >David > > > >If a bid is illegal condoning it doesn't change the legality > of the bid, > >does it? > > > >Let's say that an insufficient bid is made, accepted, and passed out. > >What do have here? > >An illegal bid that has become a legal contract? > > AG : according to L27A-B, before the opponent decides, the > insufficient bid > is neither legal or illegal. It becomes either when opponent > decides to > condone it or not. It is thus a non-bid which has become a > legal bid (and > in this case a legal contract). Asking whether an > insufficient bid is legal > or not, at the moment it is done, is like asking whether your > next child > will be girl or boy, when it is not even conceived. > I am not so sure this to be a right description. On the other hand I am not sure the question to be really interesting. Is it possible to explain why this question arose? If a captain let players pay for each illegal thing happening at the table, making an insufficient bid should be on the role, independent of the acceptance. Calling an insufficient bid a non-bid seems strange to me. What we can say is that it is not legal to make an insufficient bid. Whether something that is not-legal can be called illegal is another (semantic) problem. The wording in the heading of 27A seems to say that even accepting an insufficient bid doesn't make it legal, but by accepting it we treat an insufficient bid as being legal. You might compare it with something happening in soccer for example. The referee not necessarily needs to whistle after an infraction if he considers the subsequent situation in favour of the innocent side. But if he later still wants to penalise the offender he might do so. Even by sending him off the field. 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 Mar 1 22:57:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21BuZP07466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:56:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21BuMH07433 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:56:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16glUb-000N0J-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:46:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:53:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards References: <002a01c1c075$ffd0b8a0$6a01a8c0@isbridge> In-Reply-To: <002a01c1c075$ffd0b8a0$6a01a8c0@isbridge> 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 g21BuOH07444 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sveinn Runar Eiriksson writes > Hi TD's and Bridge Law fans >   > My name is Sveinn Runar Eiriksson and I am TD in Iceland. >   > Last tuesday I was directing a teams tournament and I was called to > a table. >   > Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and after claiming 8 tricks, North > suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs which he also happen to > hold in his hand.   They got really confused so they called the TD. >   > I found out that Dummy had originally had 14 cards, and the rest of > the hands had 13, and that the hand had been played thruout until > the claim when one of the defenders realised that the deck must > have been flawed. >   > I awarded an adjusted score and was lucky that declarer had 7 top > tricks in nt, so it was easy to adjust the score to 1n making 1.    > But as it was Dummy who had 14 cards does that mean that both sides > are responsible, like for example if Dummy revokes there is no > penalty? No. This so-called rule is not in the Law book. Dummy is responsible for his hand, and declarer for playing it. The defenders are not responsible for it. Certainly there are different rules of dummy revoking but that is no reason to assume the defenders are in any way responsible for it. >  The 8th trick was by the way made with the club 7 but > only in the claim, it was still tabled in dummy.   Does that change > anything?   Law 64.B.3 says that there is no revoke penalty for > failure of following suit with a faced card, but would similar > things apply because Dummy won a trick with a 14th card that was > faced?# The extra card did not really belong to the hand at all. If dummy had revoked as a result there would be no revoke penalty because it was exposed, but there could still be an equity adjustment under L64C. >   Does that make the TD give 40% to both sides when awarding > an adjusted score?  or would both sides get 50%? A result has been obtained, so you do not give an artificial score. You just work out what would have happened without the C&, looking at Defective Tricks and Revokes. In this case it seems to make little difference. >  or would you just > adjust the tricks without changing the final contract? Exactly. > In the end I gave EW procedural penalty for not counting their > cards according to law 90 and even though I was tempted I didnt > jokingly imply that I would give procedural penalty to NS for not > counting dummies cards!! Giving E/W a PP is fair enough, though most of us would have given him a warning rather than a PP. He has breached some Law or other. N/S have done nothing wrong so it is good you did not give them a PP! -- 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 Mar 1 22:57:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21BuWv07463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:56:32 +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-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21BuKH07422 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 22:56:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16glUb-000N0I-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 11:46:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:42:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , Tim West-meads > writes >>In-Reply-To: <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 >> >Swiss teams, Table 1, last weekend: What do you make of this auction >guys? > >Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) >1H 1N >3N 4S ? > >What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? Don't worry about my 3N >bid, it was correct with this partner. Guess partner's hand. Jxxxx Kxx xx QJx "I had to bid 1NT to show six to nine points." I would pass with your hand, with 6H [sic] a close second. -- 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 Mar 1 23:41:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21CfFx14883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:41:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21Cf6H14865 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 23:41:07 +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 g21CVIc00034 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 13:31:18 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Mar 01 13:27:56 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KEUJESEN0S0011G1@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:30:30 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:30:15 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:30:28 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g21Cf8H14871 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Sveinn Runar Eiriksson writes > > Declarer (West) was playing 1nt and after claiming 8 tricks, North > > suddenly notices that Dummy has 7 of clubs which he also happen to hold > > in his hand.   They got really confused so they called the TD. > >   > > I found out that Dummy had originally had 14 cards, and the rest of > > the hands had 13, and that the hand had been played thruout until > > the claim when one of the defenders realised that the deck must have been flawed. > >   > > I awarded an adjusted score and was lucky that declarer had 7 top > > tricks in nt, so it was easy to adjust the score to 1n making 1.    > > But as it was Dummy who had 14 cards does that mean that both sides > > are responsible, like for example if Dummy revokes there is no penalty? David St: > No. This so-called rule is not in the Law book. Dummy is > responsible > for his hand, and declarer for playing it. The defenders are not > responsible for it. > > Certainly there are different rules of dummy revoking but that is no > reason to assume the defenders are in any way responsible for it. > >  The 8th trick was by the way made with the club 7 but > > only in the claim, it was still tabled in dummy. Does that change > > anything?   Law 64.B.3 says that there is no revoke penalty for > > failure of following suit with a faced card, but would similar > > things apply because Dummy won a trick with a 14th card that was > > faced?# > > The extra card did not really belong to the hand at all. > If dummy had > revoked as a result there would be no revoke penalty because it was > exposed, but there could still be an equity adjustment under L64C. > > >   Does that make the TD give 40% to both sides when awarding > > an adjusted score?  or would both sides get 50%? > > A result has been obtained, so you do not give an artificial score. > You just work out what would have happened without the C&, looking at > Defective Tricks and Revokes. In this case it seems to make little > difference. > > >  or would you just > > adjust the tricks without changing the final contract? > > Exactly. > I don't agree with the suggested ruling as given by David. In this special case I even have the laws supporting me. Read L 13C: since there was a claim play has ended and the TD needs to cancell the board (result), whatever that means. Law 13 seems deficient to me (WBFLC!!). In the first place it should say what kind of result to award, and in my opinion it should be average minus/average plus, though if a replay is a possibility that might be a reasonable solution too. In the second place it should more clearly describe what has to be done if the 14th card is noticed during play. L 13 suggests that a 14th card in a pocket necessarily means only 12 cards in another. If that is what it wants to deal with the laws should describe what to do in case of a 53rd card. My suggestion is that once play of the board has started it needs to be cancelled (see also L 13 A3). Discovered during the auction the heading of L 13 applies. It is interesting to see what a TD will do to discover that the board can be played without a change of call. Did this ever happen to anyone of you and what did you do? Ask the player with a card less or more whether he wants to change his call, explaining the consequences? 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 Mar 2 02:22:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21FKu515479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 02:20:56 +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-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g21FKkH15458 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 02:20:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.60.233] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gogU-0003jf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 15:10:58 +0000 Message-ID: <001401c1c133$32bca040$e93ce150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:09:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "'Alain Gottcheiner'" ; "Walt Flory" ; Sent: 01 March 2002 08:15 Subject: RE: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? > > > Calling an insufficient bid a non-bid seems > strange to me. What we can say is that it is > not legal to make an insufficient bid. Whether > something that is not-legal can be called > illegal is another (semantic) problem. The > wording in the heading of 27A seems to say > that even accepting an insufficient bid doesn't > make it legal, but by accepting it we treat an > insufficient bid *as being* legal. > +=+ *"as though it were legal"* If you own a parrot and the Netherlands Bird Fanciers' Society announces that parrots may be exhibited at its Birds of Prey show, your parrot does not become a hawk and is not going to devour the cat. If anything it will be praying that none of the other exhibits gets loose. ~ 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 Mar 2 03:11:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21GBVP24052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 03:11:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21GBMH24033 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 03:11:23 +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 LAA17909 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:01:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA22016 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:01:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 11:01:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203011601.LAA22016@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > I don't agree with the suggested ruling as given by David. In this special > case I even have the laws supporting me. Read L 13C: since there was a claim > play has ended I'm confused. Based on our discussion a few weeks ago, I thought that the TD had to decide whether the 53rd card arrived in one of the board pockets or was added after the cards were removed from the board. In the former case, the TD would apply L13, but in the latter he has to do something else because L13 does not apply. (See its beginning, before part A.) In any case, I don't see how L13C can apply here. As I understand it, no hand contained fewer than 13 cards; there was just an extra one. Can someone clear this up? If all of us are having such problems with it, I guess a change in language wouldn't be a bad idea for the new Laws. I suggest whatever change is made should not give players any options, and of course it needs to protect the side that has done nothing wrong. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 03:41:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21Geuu29260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 03:40:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06ps.bigpond.com (mta06ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21GemH29246 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 03:40:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.75]) by mta06ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GSAZ7K00.JX7 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 02:30:56 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.216 ([144.138.141.216]) by PSMAM03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 83/5499148); 02 Mar 2002 02:30:52 Message-ID: <001301c1c13e$7c47d4e0$d88d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 03:31:00 +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: Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> AG : according to L27A-B, before the opponent decides, the >> insufficient bid >> is neither legal or illegal. It becomes either when opponent >> decides to >> condone it or not. It is thus a non-bid which has become a >> legal bid (and >> in this case a legal contract). Asking whether an >> insufficient bid is legal >> or not, at the moment it is done, is like asking whether your >> next child >> will be girl or boy, when it is not even conceived. > >I am not so sure this to be a right description. On the other hand I am >not sure the question to be really interesting. It may not be interesting to some BLML readers, but some of us are intrigued that one of the basic tenets of bridge ("that a bid must supersede the previous bid") is not in the Laws, although it used to be in the Laws. Could there be some reason that this is omitted from the Laws? >Is it possible to explain why this question arose? Yes. It arose rather obscurely. The discussion on BLML started as a sub-thread of "Enjoy", which was discussing that if partner opens 2S (black or red suits), and you respond 2C, the definition of "convention" in the Laws (surprisingly IMO) says that the 2C/3C bids probably are not conventional (well, Gordon Bower and others provided a strong argument that this is so, convincing the doubters such as me that they have a strong case). > [snip] >What we can say is that it is not legal to make an insufficient bid. I suppose you can say that, but alas we (i.e. those who believe that the game of bridge is played according to the Laws of Bridge) cannot find justification in the Laws for saying that. The Laws simply do not say so. They hint that an insufficient bid is illegal; normal English languuage usage very strongly suggests that it is so, but the Laws specifically exclude the statement that would make this so, when they used to include that statement. If you want to think about another of these oddities in the Laws, then why are the words "the deal and" included in the definition of "Rotation" in Chapter 1 of the Laws? IMO these words belong only in the Laws of Rubber Bridge, not in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Otherwise, the Laws seem to be banning the widely-approved 5-pile deal, as part of it is not clockwise. Don't worry - I won't keep doing this all year long. :) Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 03:43:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21Gh0829523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 03:43:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21GgqH29502 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 03:42:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d167.iae.nl [212.61.3.167]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 07B79229FD for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:32:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <019b01c1c13e$81236c40$a7033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 17:28:13 +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 Is 3NT gambling non-conventional? You want to play it and partner may pass.(if he has....) > Michael Schmahl wrote: > snip > 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 04:32:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21HWD708662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 04:32:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04ps.bigpond.com (mta04ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.136]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21HW6H08639 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 04:32:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.75]) by mta04ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GSB1L200.9LV for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 03:22:14 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.216 ([144.138.141.216]) by PSMAM03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 83/5521362); 02 Mar 2002 03:22:10 Message-ID: <009601c1c145$a6bb9520$d88d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Re:[BLML] Incorrect number of cards Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 04:22:18 +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 Sveinn Runar Eiriksson wrote: >Law 13 is: > >"When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board >contained an incorrect number of cards, if a player with an incorrect >number of cards has made a call, the Director shall award an artificial >adjusted score, and may penalize an offender. If no suck call has been >made then:" In Australia, we use the 1997 English Edition of the Laws. Law 13 in Australia is: "When the Director determines that one or more pockets of the board contained an incorrect number of cards, and a player with an incorrect number of cards has made a call, then when the Director deems that the deal can be corrected and played normally with no change of call, the deal may be so played with the concurrence of the players the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score, and may penalize an offender. If no such call has been >made then: Sveinn, did you leave out part of the Law 13 when you copied it out, or is your 1997 Laws Book really different from mine??????? If "my Law 13" is applied, then the ruling is much easier, I think. Ton suggested elsewhere in this thread that Law 13C could be used. I have a burning sensation to point out that there seems to be a technical problem with Law 13, which says: Law 13: "If no such call has been made, then: A B C ... " with "such call" meaning "a player with an incorrect number of cards has made a call". Thus *technically* Law 13C only applies if "no such call has been made", for this is what the Law says. So Law 13C is not applicable if the Laws are read verbatim. Should the Laws be read verbatim? IMO yes. Yes, I know that this obviously is not what Law 13C is meant to mean, and I know it obviously seems to be a slip in the Laws, and that Law 13C should be separated in some way from that introductory clause. The problem is that when someone like me reads Law 13, we read the introductory clause ("if ... made"), we see that A, B and C all only apply to that introdyuctory clause, and thus we do not need to look at A, B or C, so we do not even read Law 13C. I think that Law 13 needs some repair. Also, I agree with Ton that the words "the result must be cancelled" in Law 13C are probably a little bit too vague. Also, that word "concurrence" in Law 13 is a bit of a mouthful; "agreement" would be an alternative. Sveinn also wrote: >but lets say that the board was correct, but the card was left on the table >and then mixed into Dummy, would that change this law in any way? Now Law 13 does not apply. Law 67 does not seem to apply. Law 14 certainly does not apply. Law 1 applies, and I think that Sven Pran's comments look best, even if Sven says that others disagree with him. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 05:42:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21IfbH21782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:41:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05ps.bigpond.com (mta05ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.137]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21IfTH21757 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:41:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.75]) by mta05ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GSB4SP00.BVE for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 04:31:37 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.216 ([144.138.141.216]) by PSMAM03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 83/5551300); 02 Mar 2002 04:31:32 Message-ID: <027601c1c14f$57d2e260$d88d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:31:40 +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 John Probst wrote: >>>Me Partner (one of the better Japanese ladies) >>>1H 1N >>>3N 4S ? >>> >>>What do you now bid with AKx AQJxx KQxx x ? >She actually held Q10xxxx x - Axxxxx. However after she'd finished >with the hand it made only 11 tricks, so I was right to pass :) What I don't understand is, how could someone with MadDog in their name not open 1S, Adam Meredith style, ending up in 6S making? Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 05:57:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21ItXN24542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:55:34 +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-34.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21ItEH24498 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:55:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gs1z-000Ofn-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:45:25 +0000 Message-ID: <0JznwFByf6f8Ew31@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:10:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <00c601c1c0a2$56222dc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <00c601c1c0a2$56222dc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: "Todd Zimnoch" > >> Yes, the ACBL doesn't run swiss pairs matches that I've seen yet. >> However, giving it a moderate amount of thought, I'm even less concerned >> about how to score a sitout in swiss pairs where the matchings are made >each >> round. With exception to small fields and a large number of rounds (where >> you might as well run a normal movement with a ghost pair) and the first >> round (where you'll have to guess), there is always a pair in the bottom >50% >> to have sitout. I don't think there need be much concern about the score >> given them. >> >> -Todd > >Disastrous ignorance. > >For practical reasons the first two rounds are always preassigned >(randomly). Sometimes, not always. Some Swiss Pairs are run on a Current Match Assignment basis. But we have an agreed figure as to what the pairs get and I do not see the problem. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 05:57:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21ItZi24551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:55:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21ItEH24497 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:55:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gs20-000Ofo-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:45:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:14:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Steve Willner wrote: > >[big snip] > >>The point I was trying to make was that an explanation of >>"undiscussed" for an opening bid would not be acceptable in a >>championship event. It might be acceptable in a game with pickup >>partnerships, although according to private email not in Canberra. > >[big snip] > >I would like to make a fine distinction here. The Canberra reg is: > >"It is implicit in the Laws that players know their own system." Oh, I remember this one. I argued when in Australia that it was not true, and found several of the top Australian TDs in agreement. It was felt that this reg showed the beliefs of one person only. Anyway, I do not believe it. It is not implicit in the Laws, and the CoP agrees with me by suggesting that immediate penalties for not knowing are usually unsuitable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 05:57:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21ItZm24548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:55:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21ItEH24495 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:55:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gs1z-000Ofm-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:45:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:08:11 +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> <010901c1c064$73d9ca00$84053dd4@b0e7g1> <001901c1c06f$ca2f87e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00b201c1c092$6d3f2ea0$0e053dd4@b0e7g1> <00c001c1c0a0$acee8e20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <00c001c1c0a0$acee8e20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 >I have for a long time understood all those arguments, and to be frank, >at the best I consider them nothing more than technicatlities with no >practical merits. >But if we are going to be technical I could like to be technical myself: > >A pair participating in a tournament shows up expecting to play the >number of scheduled boards as announced, to them a walk-over (or >"sit-out") is an irregularity. They are there to play bridge, not to sit >out. Unless you run things differently in Norway, this is not true. Certainly if a pair turns up to play in an English club, they expect there to be a roughly one-in-four chance of sitting out during the evening. It is part of the expectation of a game of duplicate bridge so it is not irregular. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 05:57:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21Itc624555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:55:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21ItEH24496 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 05:55:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gs20-000Ofp-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 01 Mar 2002 18:45:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 16:23:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >I don't agree with the suggested ruling as given by David. In this special >case I even have the laws supporting me. Read L 13C: since there was a claim >play has ended and the TD needs to cancell the board (result), whatever that >means. Law 13 seems deficient to me (WBFLC!!). In the first place it should >say what kind of result to award, and in my opinion it should be average >minus/average plus, though if a replay is a possibility that might be a >reasonable solution too. I see that as with an earlier case I have made an assumption and Ton has made the opposite assumption. In my experience, more as a player than a Director, a hand with 53 cards only had 52 cards in the board, and thus L13 does not apply. the norm is for one of the players to add a card to his hand after removing it from the board, usually because it is lying on the table from an earlier board. Anyway, it is easy enough usually to find where the card has come from, so the ruling of fact tends to be simple. Now, if the card was added after the hands were taken from the board, my ruling is right, and the deal stands. If, on the other hand, it is discovered that one hand had 14 cards, Ton is right to use L13, and an ARTAS will be the normal result. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 10:54:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g21NrKk01399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:53:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g21NrAH01362 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 10:53:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from ptialaska.net (208-151-121-51-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.51] (may be forged)) by ptialaska.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g21NhLf11551 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 14:43:21 -0900 (AKST) Message-ID: <3C8011F3.8060905@ptialaska.net> Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 14:42:43 -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> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> <019b01c1c13e$81236c40$a7033dd4@b0e7g1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Michael Schmahl wrote: >> >> > snip > > [Attribution snipped -- the following was from Herman] >>The fact that a particular call can be passed out by partner >>does not in itself mean that it is non-conventional. >> Ben Schelen wrote: > Is 3NT gambling non-conventional? > You want to play it and partner may pass.(if he has....) > > Irrelevant analogy. I never said 3NT gambling was non-conventional. I also never said that the fact that a particular call can be passed out makes it natural. I merely said that a conventional bid "is one that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named . . . or high card strength or length there." Gambling 3NT certainly does convey a meaning other than willingness to play in NT, but 3C p/c in response to 2S reds or blacks doesn't. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 2 11:33:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g220WnA09434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:32:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g220WeH09412 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:32:40 +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 g220MpY01067 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:22:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id TAA24639; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:22:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:22:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200203020022.TAA24639@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Troubled Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the letters to the editor of the march edition of the ACBL Bulletin, p. 11, there was a letter called "Troubled". In it the writer, Carol Stuenkel, wrote that in the auction 1NT-P-P-P, partner of the 1NT passed with 11HCP, 2 aces and a king. The player explained that she had passed because her hand had arrived pre-sorted. The writer did not bring this to the attention of the director until the end of the game, and when she did she was "brushed off". This was a restricted game, max 1000 mps. She also mentioned that only 25% of the players have a convention card, which she finds "uncomfortable"; she ends, "These may be small and insignificant points that I should ignore, but I may not return to that club to play. My question: am I making too much of these issues?" The ACBL responce: " The first issue was raised with two experienced directors. Both said that it appeared the person who passed 1NT had UI. Both said the result should have been thrown out and *average plus awarded to the non-offenders* [emphasis mine--Tony]. As for the convention card issue, ACBL regulations are clear: both players in a partnership must have identically filled out CCs available at all times." I have two questions: 1) is A+/A- really appropriate? It doesn't look right to me. 2) aren't CC regulations the SO's responsibility, and not the ACBL's? I can see the ACBL insisting on its regs in an ACBL sponsored game (STAC, sectional, regional, ect) but this seems to imply that clubs also have to toe the ACBL line. The ACBL sanctions club games, but it doesn't sponsor them. The SO would be the club owner/sponsor, and could provide their own regs (bidding, conventions, alerting, ect.), n'est-ce pas? 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 Sat Mar 2 12:55:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g221tHg23582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:55:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g221t7H23552 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:55:08 +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 g221jDM24351; Fri, 1 Mar 2002 20:45:14 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 20:52:48 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020301204513-r01010800-0093b874-0904-0109@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 11:48 AM, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > I really don't think this rule can be used against novices. Shouldn't be, I agree. Can be is another can of worms altogether. > I have played against novices and the concept of "probable (to be > expected) auctions" just doesn't apply to them. Too true. :-) 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 Mar 2 13:48:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g222mTe02893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:48:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g222mHH02867 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:48:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.81.216] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gzMB-000CTU-00; Sat, 02 Mar 2002 02:34:44 +0000 Message-ID: <004701c1c193$c642bba0$d851e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <015901c1bf8b$6dbdd000$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <010901c1c064$73d9ca00$84053dd4@b0e7g1> <001901c1c06f$ca2f87e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00b201c1c092$6d3f2ea0$0e053dd4@b0e7g1> <00c001c1c0a0$acee8e20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 02:31:21 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > > Unless you run things differently in Norway, this is > not true. Certainly if a pair turns up to play in an > English club, they expect there to be a roughly > one-in-four chance of sitting out during the evening. > It is part of the expectation of a game of duplicate > bridge so it is not irregular. > +=+ A 'session' is an extended period of play during which a number of boards, specified by the sponsoring orgaization, is scheduled to be played. The schedule may designate for any one partnership a different number from another partnership; it does not include any number of boards not due to be played. The Director is the agent of the sponsoring organization. ~ 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 Mar 2 13:48:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g222mSQ02891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:48:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.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 g222mGH02862 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:48:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.81.216] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16gzMA-000CTU-00; Sat, 02 Mar 2002 02:34:42 +0000 Message-ID: <004601c1c193$c53dcec0$d851e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <001301c1c13e$7c47d4e0$d88d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2002 20:22:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 4:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? > It may not be interesting to some BLML readers, > but some of us are intrigued that one of the > basic tenets of bridge ("that a bid must supersede > the previous bid") is not in the Laws, although it > used to be in the Laws. Could there be some > reason that this is omitted from the Laws? > +=+ It is the language that is the problem. 'Supersede': to take the place of. An insufficient bid does not take the place of a previous bid. Law 18 says it, but not in the most immediately obvious way. ~ 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 Mar 2 18:34:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g227Y9V03297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 18:34:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g227Y1H03293 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 18:34:02 +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 4DAF7HCD; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 02:24:11 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020302021006.0274a3c0@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 02:24:02 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Director's Ruling [misexplanation] In-Reply-To: <200202281620.LAA15759@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 11:20 AM 2/28/02 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >The point I was trying to make was that an explanation of >"undiscussed" for an opening bid would not be acceptable in a >championship event. It might be acceptable in a game with pickup >partnerships, although according to private email not in Canberra. Well, it wasn't an opening bid, but my favorite example of miscommunication between expert partners comes from the opening round of the Strat A Grand National Teams at the 1998 "Nationals" in Chicago. I was sitting behind Jeff Meckstroth (across from Bobby Levin). The auction goes: Bobby opp Jeff opp P P 1H P 2S* P P P * Alert? What is it? Weak Jump Shift Making 5. It was a Bergen Fit Bid. Walt Flory -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 3 02:34:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g22FWD803542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 02:32:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g22FW4H03538 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 02:32:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp259921pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.55.147.239]) by mtaout02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Feb 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GSC00K6TQOY3D@mtaout02.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 02 Mar 2002 10:22:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002 10:13:55 -0500 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy In-reply-to: <019b01c1c13e$81236c40$a7033dd4@b0e7g1> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020302101107.00a80930@mail.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:28 PM 3/1/02 +0100, Ben Schelen wrote: >Is 3NT gambling non-conventional? >You want to play it and partner may pass.(if he has....) It's conventional because it shows something else unrelated to the call, a solid minor suit. Thus even the Acol-style 3NT (two outside stoppers), which is often passed, is a convention. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 3 03:15:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g22GFNM07985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 03:15:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g22GFFH07967 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 03:15:15 +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 LAA08628 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:05:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA00608 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:05:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 11:05:25 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203021605.LAA00608@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: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ A 'session' is an extended period of play during > which a number of boards, specified by the sponsoring > orgaization, is scheduled to be played. Just to make sure it is still on your list, BLML has mentioned before the need to define something like "stanza," which omits "extended period." A "stanza" is the unit of play after which scores are compared. It may be equivalent to a session for a typical pairs event but as short as a single board in a barometer event. (Of course the actual duration is up to the SO in each event.) Stanza may be useful for defining the end of correction and appeals periods, for example. Also, while it should remain illegal to discuss deals with other competitors during a stanza, it needn't necessarily be illegal for a whole session. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 3 07:09:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g22K8YC19910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 07:08:34 +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 g22K8QH19906 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 07:08:27 +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); Sat, 2 Mar 2002 13:58:37 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200203020022.TAA24639@freenet10.carleton.ca> Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:16:06 -0600 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2002 19:58:37.0244 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4320FC0:01C1C224] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >In the letters to the editor of the march edition of the >ACBL Bulletin, p. 11, there was a letter called "Troubled". >In it the writer, Carol Stuenkel, wrote that in the auction >1NT-P-P-P, partner of the 1NT passed with 11HCP, 2 aces and >a king. The player explained that she had passed because her >hand had arrived pre-sorted. The writer did not bring this >to the attention of the director until the end of the game, >and when she did she was "brushed off". This was a restricted >game, max 1000 mps. >She also mentioned that only 25% of the players have a convention >card, which she finds "uncomfortable"; she ends, >"These may be small and insignificant points that I should ignore, >but I may not return to that club to play. My question: >am I making too much of these issues?" >The ACBL responce: >" The first issue was raised with two experienced directors. Both >said that it appeared the person who passed 1NT had UI. Both >said the result should have been thrown out and *average plus >awarded to the non-offenders* [emphasis mine--Tony]. >As for the convention card issue, ACBL regulations are clear: >both players in a partnership must have identically filled >out CCs available at all times." > I have two questions: >1) is A+/A- really appropriate? It doesn't look right to me. >2) aren't CC regulations the SO's responsibility, and not the > ACBL's? I can see the ACBL insisting on its regs in an ACBL > sponsored game (STAC, sectional, regional, ect) but this seems > to imply that clubs also have to toe the ACBL line. The ACBL > sanctions club games, but it doesn't sponsor them. The SO > would be the club owner/sponsor, and could provide their > own regs (bidding, conventions, alerting, ect.), n'est-ce pas? > > Tony (aka ac342) Looks like a 16B3 case to me. Accidental unauthorized information. Average plus to both sides. Of course, the person who passed with the 11 HCP hand committed an offense. So some sort of penalty is in order, but I don't know off the top of my head what law to refer to. 72B? (Time to read the whole law book over again.) 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 Sun Mar 3 07:15:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g22KFXJ19926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 07:15:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g22KFPH19922 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 07:15:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 12:05:31 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [64.158.32.29] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <20020302200133.3c812f9d39d04@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] blml in Houston Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 14:06:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00EE_01C1C1F3.7F3862E0" 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: 02 Mar 2002 20:05:31.0639 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B31B870:01C1C225] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00EE_01C1C1F3.7F3862E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Houston NABC =20 To date not much interest has been expressed in getting together at the = Houston NABC. But we shall not be deterred. Unless there is a = suggestion otherwise here are the arrangements. BLML gathers at Zucchini's Resturant at 7:30 am Sunday March 10, 2002. = For an hour or whatever. Zucchini's Resturant is located on the Second Level [highest floor of = the Mall] two floors above a skating rink [at the Northeast corner]. I am now sending DWS a floor plan of the Second Level so he can post it = on his Webpage. =20 It is named ZucchinisGalleriaSecondLevel.gif. =20 I am also sending him Zucchini's menu as a text file Zucchini's Menu.txt See you weary traveler's in Houston. Regards roger pewick ------=_NextPart_000_00EE_01C1C1F3.7F3862E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Houston NABC
 
To date not much interest has = been=20 expressed in getting together at the Houston NABC.  But we shall = not be=20 deterred.  Unless there is a suggestion otherwise here are the=20 arrangements.
 
BLML gathers at Zucchini's = Resturant at=20 7:30 am Sunday March 10, 2002.   For an hour or = whatever.
 
Zucchini's Resturant is located on the Second Level = [highest=20 floor of the Mall] two floors above a skating rink [at the Northeast=20 corner].
 
I am now sending DWS a floor plan of the Second = Level so he=20 can post it on his Webpage. 
It is  named = ZucchinisGalleriaSecondLevel.gif. =20
I am also sending him Zucchini's menu as a text file = Zucchini's Menu.txt
 
See you weary traveler's in Houston.
 
Regards
roger pewick
 
------=_NextPart_000_00EE_01C1C1F3.7F3862E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 3 08:39:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g22LdIT19959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:39:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail4.nc.rr.com (fe4.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g22LdBH19955 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:39:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from HPAuthorizedCustomer ([66.26.18.82]) by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:29:47 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> From: "Nancy Dressing" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 16:28:01 -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 I don't think any law has been violated by passing with an eleven point hand. Isn't one allowed to deviate from partnership understandings as long as partner is fooled as are the opponents? Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Harris" To: ; "BLML" Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 3:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled > >In the letters to the editor of the march edition of the > >ACBL Bulletin, p. 11, there was a letter called "Troubled". > >In it the writer, Carol Stuenkel, wrote that in the auction > >1NT-P-P-P, partner of the 1NT passed with 11HCP, 2 aces and > >a king. The player explained that she had passed because her > >hand had arrived pre-sorted. The writer did not bring this > >to the attention of the director until the end of the game, > >and when she did she was "brushed off". This was a restricted > >game, max 1000 mps. > >She also mentioned that only 25% of the players have a convention > >card, which she finds "uncomfortable"; she ends, > >"These may be small and insignificant points that I should ignore, > >but I may not return to that club to play. My question: > >am I making too much of these issues?" > >The ACBL responce: > >" The first issue was raised with two experienced directors. Both > >said that it appeared the person who passed 1NT had UI. Both > >said the result should have been thrown out and *average plus > >awarded to the non-offenders* [emphasis mine--Tony]. > >As for the convention card issue, ACBL regulations are clear: > >both players in a partnership must have identically filled > >out CCs available at all times." > > I have two questions: > >1) is A+/A- really appropriate? It doesn't look right to me. > >2) aren't CC regulations the SO's responsibility, and not the > > ACBL's? I can see the ACBL insisting on its regs in an ACBL > > sponsored game (STAC, sectional, regional, ect) but this seems > > to imply that clubs also have to toe the ACBL line. The ACBL > > sanctions club games, but it doesn't sponsor them. The SO > > would be the club owner/sponsor, and could provide their > > own regs (bidding, conventions, alerting, ect.), n'est-ce pas? > > > > Tony (aka ac342) > > Looks like a 16B3 case to me. Accidental unauthorized information. > Average plus to both sides. Of course, the person who passed with the 11 > HCP hand committed an offense. So some sort of penalty is in order, but I > don't know off the top of my head what law to refer to. 72B? (Time to > read the whole law book over again.) > > 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 Sun Mar 3 10:17:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g22NHQv02587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 10:17:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m06.mx.aol.com (imo-m06.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g22NHHH02551 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 10:17:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-m06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 7.fc.1476ec83 (3988) for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 18:07:17 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 18:07:17 EST Subject: [BLML] Questions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_fc.1476ec83.29b2b525_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_fc.1476ec83.29b2b525_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In numerous threads that I've been monitoring (and keeping my hands off) the key to the answer of what to do needed the actual facts of what transpired at the table. Too often, in order to make an esoteric point, the positer has left out vital information. This is particularly true when we run into posts that are for argument purposes only, and have not happened in real life. A recurrent thought that occurs to me is why someone didn't ASK certain questions at the table. i.e. Why did you not bid? Why did you bid? What did you think you were doing? The gurus like to take things in a vacuum, it demonstrates a higher level of intelligence and ability I guess, when the answer is only as far away as Why? In my limited 42 years in this business I've been pleasantly surprised, and at all levels of play, that when asked, players usually tell the truth, and are unable and unarmed to immediately provide spurious reasons that make for problems and don't surface until hours later in committee. Think what you may, but many times the players have helped to resolve the problems by just a bit of investigation on my part. And those who react to questions with "...I don't have to explain anything to you, I want a committee...." "...I'll have to work that out later..." ".. ..you wouldn't understand the complexity of this situation since you don't play brdige as well as I do..."quickly find from my responses that the game is played at the table, not at or by a committee. ACBLers take particular note of this last sentence 'cause it ain't true in your house at the moment. I applaud those who find needs for better language, clarity in writing, appropriate English, and better organization in the FLB. I'm sorry for those whose metier is to use those discrepancies in presentation for changing the nature of our game. (The thread on insufficient bids is one that quickly comes to mind -- seems that some think that you can intentionally make an insufficient bid since the law appears not to clearly indicate that this is a violation of the game of bridge, and violations are anathema). As a member of the drafting sub-committee for the next Laws revision I will staunchly advance the position that our game needs clearer definition, explanation and regulation, but will remain hard to convince that it's basic nature needs changing. like we say in Spanish, he dicho, Kojak -- Comments (unless they are insulting, Mr. Vitold), are welcome. --part1_fc.1476ec83.29b2b525_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In numerous threads that I've been monitoring (and keeping my hands off) the key to the answer of what to do needed the actual facts of what transpired at the table.  Too often, in order to make an esoteric point, the positer has left out vital information. This is particularly true when we run into posts that are for argument purposes only, and have not happened in real life.  A recurrent thought that occurs to me is why someone didn't ASK certain questions at the table.  i.e. Why did you not bid? Why did you bid? What did you think you were doing?

The gurus like to take things in a vacuum, it demonstrates a higher level of intelligence and ability I guess, when the answer is only as far away as Why?  In my limited 42 years in this business I've been pleasantly surprised, and at all levels of play, that when asked, players usually tell the truth, and are unable and unarmed to immediately provide spurious reasons that make for problems and don't surface until hours later in committee. 

Think what you may, but many times the players have helped to resolve the problems by just a bit of investigation on my part.  And those who react to questions with "...I don't have to explain anything to you, I want a committee...."  "...I'll have to work that out later..." ".. ..you wouldn't understand the complexity of this situation since you don't play brdige as well as I do..."quickly find from my responses that the game is played at the table, not at or by a committee.  ACBLers  take particular note of this last sentence 'cause it ain't true in your house at the moment.

I applaud those who find needs for better language, clarity in writing, appropriate English, and better organization in the FLB.  I'm sorry for those whose metier is to use those discrepancies in presentation for changing the nature of our game.  (The thread on insufficient bids is one that quickly comes to mind -- seems that some think that you can intentionally make an insufficient bid since the law appears not to clearly indicate that this is a violation of the game of bridge, and violations are anathema).  

As a member of the drafting sub-committee for the next Laws revision I will staunchly advance the position that our game needs clearer definition, explanation and regulation, but will remain hard to convince that it's basic nature needs changing.

like we say in Spanish,   he dicho,   

Kojak -- Comments (unless they are insulting,  Mr. Vitold), are welcome.


 --part1_fc.1476ec83.29b2b525_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 Sun Mar 3 14:48:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g233llU08628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:47:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g233lcH08606 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:47:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g233bmd04727 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 19:37:48 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002e01c1c264$c92d6c80$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020302101107.00a80930@mail.comcast.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 19:25:26 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 J. Grabiner" > Ben Schelen wrote: > >Is 3NT gambling non-conventional? > >You want to play it and partner may pass.(if he has....) > > It's conventional because it shows something else unrelated to the call, a > solid minor suit. Thus even the Acol-style 3NT (two outside stoppers), > which is often passed, is a convention. This reading of the convention definition asserts that a 3NT bid which says "I am fairly sure that I can take nine tricks in notrump" is a convention. If the definition says it is (I don't believe it does), then it is not conveying the sense of what bridge players consider a convention to be. Fix it. A natural 1m opening denies a longer major suit, which is surely "something else unrelated to the call." Does that make 1m a convention? When a partnership opens 2NT or 2C with a standard-shape big notrump hand, isn't it obvious that a natural 3NT opening *must* be based on a long solid minor? The convention card clearly shows this agreement, and the ACBL requires that 3NT be Alerted. That doesn't make it a convention. It is very common for a player to open one of a suit, and later bid notrump in a situation that suggests a long solid minor. Is that a convention? No, it's a treatment, as in a Precision 1D=1S=3NT, which responder may not remove to a suit because opener must have a long solid minor (maybe clubs!). Alertable, yes. convention, no. 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 Mar 3 17:01:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2360gt03784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:00:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2360XH03751 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 17:00:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g235ohd05977 for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 21:50:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005801c1c277$5ab08860$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: <20020302200133.3c812f9d39d04@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] blml in Houston Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 21:50:38 -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 Thanks, Roger, good work. It may be 8 am before I get there, so don't give up on me. -- Marv French Roger Pewick wrote: Houston NABC To date not much interest has been expressed in getting together at the Houston NABC. But we shall not be deterred. Unless there is a suggestion otherwise here are the arrangements. BLML gathers at Zucchini's Resturant at 7:30 am Sunday March 10, 2002. For an hour or whatever. Zucchini's Resturant is located on the Second Level [highest floor of the Mall] two floors above a skating rink [at the Northeast corner]. I am now sending DWS a floor plan of the Second Level so he can post it on his Webpage. It is named ZucchinisGalleriaSecondLevel.gif. I am also sending him Zucchini's menu as a text file Zucchini's Menu.txt See you weary traveler's in Houston. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 3 19:36:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g238aDU21251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:36:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f76.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g238a5H21236 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:36:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 00:26:10 -0800 Received: from 172.133.78.222 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 08:26:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.133.78.222] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 00:26:10 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2002 08:26:10.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[12EE29E0:01C1C28D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >When a partnership opens 2NT or 2C with a standard-shape big notrump >hand, isn't it obvious that a natural 3NT opening *must* be based on a >long solid minor? No, it isn't. 3NT could be based on a long, solid major. It could be based on 25-26 HCP, balanced. Nothing prohibits players from playing more-or-less any conventions they'd like, even if you'd say they don't make much bridge sense. -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 Sun Mar 3 19:44:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g238iVD22435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:44:31 +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.tiscali.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 g238iMH22409 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:44:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.50.175] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16hRRs-000H3S-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 08:34:28 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c1c28e$ae885780$af32e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 08:36:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 11:07 PM Subject: [BLML] Questions > In numerous threads that I've been monitoring > (and keeping my hands off) the key to the answer > of what to do needed the actual facts of what > transpired at the table. Too often, in order to > make an esoteric point, the positer has left out > vital information. This is particularly true when > we run into posts that are for argument purposes > only, and have not happened in real life. A > recurrent thought that occurs to me is why > someone didn't ASK certain questions at the > table. i.e. Why did you not bid? Why did you > bid? What did you think you were doing? > > The gurus like to take things in a vacuum, it > demonstrates a higher level of intelligence and > ability I guess, when the answer is only as far > away as Why? In my limited 42 years in this > business I've been pleasantly surprised, and > at all levels of play, that when asked, players > usually tell the truth, and are unable and > unarmed to immediately provide spurious > reasons that make for problems and don't > surface until hours later in committee. > > Think what you may, but many times the > players have helped to resolve the problems > by just a bit of investigation on my part. And > those who react to questions with "...I don't > have to explain anything to you, I want a > committee...." "...I'll have to work that out later..." > ".. ..you wouldn't understand the complexity > of this situation since you don't play bridge as > well as I do..."quickly find from my responses > that the game is played at the table, not at or > by a committee. ACBLers take particular note > of this last sentence 'cause it ain't true in your > house at the moment. > +=+ But do ACBLers really say this sort of thing? I know that there is a 'convention' in Zone 2 that an AC starts from scratch and 'ignores' what the Director has ruled and his reasons for it. That is an attitude I do not understand because in law an appeal is an appeal for a review of a ruling made by the Director (Law 92 says it twice), and the appellant needs to demonstrate grounds for finding that the Director's ruling should be set aside. The ACBL approach invites all too plainly possibilities that the AC ruling will be made on a different set of 'facts' from those uncovered by the Director at the table. A key question for the AC to ask is: "Did you make this point to the Director when he was ascertaining the facts?" - a question on which it is often right to turn again to the Director after hearing the player's reply. It is all too easy for an AC to add to the facts something that was not in the player's mind at the table, and the judgement is not about things thought of subsequently or suggested by 'friends'. Both Directors and ACs should give players the chance to speak - and listen to what they say. Very often players will make their case - or destroy it - by the words from their own mouths, but the AC needs to test any 'new' evidence as to whether it has 'developed' since the time of the incident. The AC should require to be convinced this is not so before accepting it in support of argument not to let the Director's ruling stand - as the ruling does in law until changed. ~ 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 Mar 3 19:48:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g238meA23092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:48:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f106.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.106]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g238mVH23077 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:48:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 00:38:37 -0800 Received: from 172.133.78.222 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 08:38:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.133.78.222] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 00:38:37 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2002 08:38:37.0466 (UTC) FILETIME=[D00BBFA0:01C1C28E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Sven Pran" >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > Luck happens, *shrug*, but in this imperfect movement, any >reasonable > > assignment (50%, ave+, or session score to be determined after the event > > ends (which is probably the only way to assign less than 50% without >much > > protest)) is unlikely to affect the results in most contests. Choosing >from > > the bottom up is a way to try to maximize the odds that the assigned >score > > becomes meaningless. > >????? I have absolutely no idea what you mean? If there must be a sitout, then you have to give a score for that round to the pair sitting out. That score cannot be based on how well they played that round as they didn't play. It can be based on how well they played in the other rounds (session score), expectation (presumably 50%), or I don't know where (Ave+, other things). If the pair has some figure in their score that is not based on how well they played, I'd like that figure to have the least possible effect on the overall result of the game. One way of achieving this would be to conspire that the bottom of the field has all the sitouts. When the bottom of the field has all the sitouts, it really doesn't matter what score you gave them. They didn't place. >But in case you have the allocation of seats in mind: For each round the >computer selects for table 1 the leading pair together with the highest >ranked >pair they have not yet met. Similar for table 2 (among the remaining >pairs), >similar for table 3 and so on way down, except that changes to this rule >are >made as neccessary to avoid having pairs meet more than once. That's one way of trying to get the bottom of the field to take all the sitouts, and also the one I suggested. I didn't think it would have been an original concept. > > It shouldn't be a cause for concern. I would be far more concerned > > about the score assigned when the sitout cannot be manipulated. > >manipulated in what way ????? Consider a 13 1/2 table mitchell movement with a ghost pair. The sitouts are predetermined by the movement. You're more likely than with the swiss movement of having the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd place finishers have a sitout calculated into their score. You cannot say who will and will not have a sitout based on the way they are playing that day. You have to make all your assumptions before the game starts. The swiss movement allows you more flexibility in how you decide who sits out. -Todd (p.s. You don't need to copy me on messages sent to the list. I read the list.) _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Mar 3 20:27:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g239Qia27182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:26:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net ([199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g239QZH27177 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:26:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-adsl-199-224-119-236.epix.net [199.224.119.236]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2001112001/PL) with SMTP id g239GgET020771 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 04:16:42 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 04:16:46 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <3C7CA9DE.6050606@village.uunet.be> <3C7CCFFF.3080400@ptialaska.net> <3C7CD662.50404@village.uunet.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020302101107.00a80930@mail.comcast.net> <002e01c1c264$c92d6c80$339a1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002e01c1c264$c92d6c80$339a1e18@san.rr.com> 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 Mar 2002 19:25:26 -0800, Marv French wrote: > >When a partnership opens 2NT or 2C with a standard-shape big notrump >hand, isn't it obvious that a natural 3NT opening *must* be based on a >long solid minor? No, Marv, it's not at all obvious. The de facto standard system on OKBridge, and I believe on a couple of the other online sites too, is SAYC, which specifies a 3NT opener as 25-27 balanced. A grossly inferior agreement, in my non-expert opinion, but like it or not, that's what the system specifies. 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 Mar 3 22:15:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23BFIp10431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:15:18 +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 g23BF9H10393 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:15:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g23B5Hm09335 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 11:05:17 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 11:05 +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: DWS wrote: > >A pair participating in a tournament shows up expecting to play the > >number of scheduled boards as announced, to them a walk-over (or > >"sit-out") is an irregularity. They are there to play bridge, not to > sit > >out. > > Unless you run things differently in Norway, this is not true. > Certainly if a pair turns up to play in an English club, they expect > there to be a roughly one-in-four chance of sitting out during the > evening. It is part of the expectation of a game of duplicate bridge so > it is not irregular. I agree. But if I turned up to a Swiss pairs with six or more boards/ round I would feel extremely surprised to be sitting out. I would expect the organisers to have a stand-by pair (or co-opt passersby from the streets) rather than allow it to happen. Alternatively the CoC might allow for triangles with each pair sitting out 2 boards. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 3 22:27:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23BR6q11907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:27:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl ([195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23BQvH11889 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:26:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-182-105.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.182.105]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3BFA78A3889; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 12:17:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00c601c1c2a5$3ff381c0$69b6f1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Incorrect number of cards Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 11:51:29 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Kooijman, A. writes > >>I don't agree with the suggested ruling as given by David. In this special >>case I even have the laws supporting me. Read L 13C: since there was a claim >>play has ended and the TD needs to cancell the board (result), whatever that >>means. Law 13 seems deficient to me (WBFLC!!). In the first place it should >>say what kind of result to award, and in my opinion it should be average >>minus/average plus, though if a replay is a possibility that might be a >>reasonable solution too. > > I see that as with an earlier case I have made an assumption and Ton >has made the opposite assumption. > > In my experience, more as a player than a Director, a hand with 53 >cards only had 52 cards in the board, and thus L13 does not apply. the >norm is for one of the players to add a card to his hand after removing >it from the board, usually because it is lying on the table from an >earlier board. > > Anyway, it is easy enough usually to find where the card has come >from, so the ruling of fact tends to be simple. > > Now, if the card was added after the hands were taken from the board, >my ruling is right, and the deal stands. > > If, on the other hand, it is discovered that one hand had 14 cards, >Ton is right to use L13, and an ARTAS will be the normal result. I got the impression that the board contained 53 cards from the beginning. If not so I agree with David. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 3 22:44:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23BiV714469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:44:31 +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-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 g23BiLH14444 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:44:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.84.122] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16hUG4-00086n-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 11:34:29 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 11:25:38 -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: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled > I don't think any law has been violated by passing > with an eleven point hand. Isn't one allowed to > deviate from partnership understandings as long > as partner is fooled as are the opponents? > Nancy > > +=+ Surely I must be dense this morning. Certainly I think there are questions to ask (as Colonel Schoder says) before jumping to conclusions and decisions. The lady passed because she received the hand sorted? What inference did she draw from this? Since she admits that was her reason for passing, and since I do not believe the order of the cards in the hand when it is received is AI on which to base an action, there are grounds* in my view for disallowing the result on the board. But other than that, does anyone suggest a basis in law for intervention by the Director? If the 1NT opener (15-17) proves to be psychic we have the good old-fashioned 'red' psyche situation - Law of Coincidence and all that. (1NT = 12-14 to pass is a matter of judgement, the hand sounds thin). And if the opener is genuine, the pass gets a good result, the mere fact of passing is no basis on which to adjust the score. So more info., questions and answers, please. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ * note:'accidentally receives' - to apply Law 16B here we must interpret 'accidental' according to the teachings of Aristotle = "not essential to the nature of (the hand)" .as indeed the sequence of the cards in it is not. [ :-) but foreseeing a challenge since I reread the Law before I wrote] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 01:30:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23ETaN05439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 01:29:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.wrs.com ([147.11.1.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23ETRH05435 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 01:29:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial2.isi.com [192.103.52.193]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id GAA01151 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 06:19:10 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge" Subject: [BLML] re: Enjoy Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 09:26:26 -0800 Message-ID: <000801c1c2d8$8c5e4f80$c13467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French said: >A natural 1m opening denies a longer major suit, >which is surely "something else unrelated to the >call." Incorrect. Canape bidding are still considered to be natural. Canape bidding is not conventional. Playing Blue Club, a player could very easily open 1D holding 4 diamonds and 5+ cards in either major. >When a partnership opens 2NT or 2C with a standard-shape >big notrump hand, isn't it obvious that a natural 3NT opening >*must* be based on a long solid minor? The convention card >clearly shows this agreement, and the ACBL requires that 3NT >be Alerted. That doesn't make it a convention. Here you have touched onto an extremely tricky issue. Suppose my partnership has the following set of agreements: A 2D opening shows any hand with primary hearts or primary spades, 5332/6331/6332 shape, and 6-10 HCP. I define a 2H opening shows any hand with 5-6 hearts, 0-3 spades, and 6-10 HCP but denies any hand suitable for a 2D opening. By inference, this means that the 2H opening promises a 4+ card holding in either clubs or diamonds. If we following Marvin's line of reasoning, the 2H opening would not be conventional, because the requirement to hold a minor is inferential, falling out of the structure of other parts of the system rather than an explicit part of the definition of the opening. Whether or not a bid is considered conventional should be based on the set of hands shown by the bid rather than the specific wording used to define that set of hands. Hopefully, this point should not be controversial. It is very common for a player to open one of a suit, and later bid notrump in a situation that suggests a long solid minor. Is that a convention? No, it's a treatment, as in a Precision 1D=1S=3NT, which responder may not remove to a suit because opener must have a long solid minor (maybe clubs!). Alertable, yes. convention, no. 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 Mar 4 05:01:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23HxO905551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 04:59:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g23HxFH05547 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 04:59:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.23.58] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16ha6r-000PzJ-00; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 17:49:22 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c1c2dc$3359c780$3a17e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Todd Zimnoch" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 12:01:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > > If there must be a sitout, then you have to > give a score for that round to the pair sitting > out. That score cannot be based on how well > they played that round as they didn't play. It > can be based on how well they played in the > other rounds (session score), expectation > (presumably 50%), or I don't know where > (Ave+, other things). If the pair has some > figure in their score that is not based on how > well they played, I'd like that figure to have the > least possible effect on the overall result of the > game. One way of achieving this would be to > conspire that the bottom of the field has all the > sitouts. When the bottom of the field has all > the sitouts, it really doesn't matter what score > you gave them. They didn't place. > +=+ I dislike the statement "you have to give a score for that round". It is shorthand. The actual requirement is to provide for comparability between scores that are to be compared, as for ranking. To divorce the measure of compensation from the proportions of the possible maximum scores obtainable, in relation to each other, and the performance is, for me, utterly illogical. But we are not comparing how well people play, we are comparing how successful they are. ~ 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 Mar 4 05:47:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23Il1q05581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 05:47:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hitchcock.mail.mindspring.net (hitchcock.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23IksH05577 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 05:46:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from smui02.slb.mindspring.net ([199.174.114.25]) by hitchcock.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16har0-0001IL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:37:02 -0500 Received: by smui02.slb.mindspring.net id NAA0000005435; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:36:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:36:56 -0500 From: To: "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" Subject: [BLML] San Diego Easter Regional (Mar 29 - Apr 4) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 24.234.153.231 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk San Diego Easter Regional We’re happy to announce that our San Diego Regional is starting on Good Friday, March 29, 2002 and will continue over Easter Sunday and end on Thursday, April 4, 2002. There are still many great deals on flights to San Diego that week. We’re holding the San Diego Regional at the Sheraton Harbor Island Hotel in San Diego, across from the airport and on the beach! We’ve moved from the Town & Country Hotel where we’ve held the tournament the last several years. There are two towers and we will be playing bridge in the West Tower. There is a free shuttle from the airport (across the street) and all the major rental car agencies (San Diego has very good rental prices) are within walking distance. Parking at the hotel is $5/day with full in/out privileges. Please visit their site for further information. Reservations: (877) 734-2726 http://www.greathotels.com/states/ca/sandiego/hotel5.htm Our playing site is very warm and comfortable. Our ACBL Tournament Directors have assured us that everyone’s questions will be answered, that they will be readily available for our bridge needs, as well as helpful in providing answers about the new playing area. The directors are committed to upholding the customer service standards outlined by the ACBL, (http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1828&PID=9954), which includes a pleasant greeting, a “please” and a “thank you”J. The weather is usually very nice in San Diego at the end of March. We have a unique location, in that we’re across the main road from the airport, but on a quiet street along the ocean. All of the restaurants, hotels and marinas are on the south side of Harbor Island Drive, and a beautiful walking sidewalk is on the north side, which is a great walk along the ocean, the entire length of Harbor Island Drive. Harbor Island Drive is 1.6 miles long, from west to east. On the west end is Tom Ham’s Lighthouse, a great restaurant that’s been there since 1971. They have a restaurant, bar, piano bar, karaoke nights, and discounted prices on early dinners at 6:00 pm Sunday thru Fridays. Happy Hour is from 4 – 7 pm and Donna Cote plays the piano from 5 – 8 pm Wed, Thu and Fri. Please visit the website to see the menu. This restaurant is ½ mile from the playing area. http://www.tomhamslighthouse.com/ Next along the road, going toward the Sheraton, is Harbor Island Marina which is a full service marina with a deli, restaurant and liquor store which harbors a few hundred yachts and boats. http://www.harborislandwest.com/ Next to the Marina and ¼ mile from the Sheraton playing site is the Boathouse Restaurant. This is one of San Diego’s finest restaurants with very reasonable prices. Visit their website to see the menu. http://www.boathouserestaurant.com/ Next is a Hilton Hotel. The hotel features spectacular water view rooms and suites with private furnished balconies with a restaurant and lounge overlooking the marina. www.sandiegoairport.hilton.com/ Next is the Sheraton West Tower where we will be playing bridge. Going East from the Sheraton is the Sunroad Marina. The marina has tours as well as a health club and delicatessen. http://www.sdmarina.com/ Walking further east is the parking lot for airport employees. Immediately east of the parking lot is the Cabrillo Isle Marina. The Marina has a deli and bar. http://www.cabrilloisle.com/ Another marina is next, Marina Cortez which includes a laundry, deli, bar, liquor store as well as a health spa. At the very east end of Harbor Drive, a little less than a mile from the Sheraton, are three wonderful restaurants, Reuben’s, Reuben E Lee and Jareds. Jared’s is truly one of San Diego’s finest restaurants specializing in steaks and seafood. The Reuben E Lee features casual waterfront dining in an 1880s-style riverboat. Reuben’s lunch menu is one of San Diego’s finest. Visit the website to see a list of the menu items. http://www.islandsedge.com/ Tournament information can be found at http://sandiegoregional.acbld22.com/ . The tournament schedule can be found at http://sandiegoregional.acbld22.com/schedule/ . If you have questions, please feel free to send an e-mail to: Al Schuster, Tournament Manager, al@acbld22.com , (760) 931-0276. Ann-Dixon-Wood, Partnerships, (760) 749-1884. Or general questions and comments e-mail, d22@acbld22.com . We look forward to seeing you and thanks for your support. District 22 Board of Directors -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 06:00:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23Ixww05597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 05:59:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hitchcock.mail.mindspring.net (hitchcock.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23IxpH05593 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 05:59:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from smui00.slb.mindspring.net ([199.174.114.20]) by hitchcock.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16hb3Y-0003Ju-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:50:00 -0500 Received: by smui00.slb.mindspring.net id NAA0000010113; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:49:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 13:49:53 -0500 From: To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] San Diego Easter Regional (Mar 29 - Apr 4) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 24.234.153.231 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk San Diego Easter Regional We're happy to announce that our San Diego Regional is starting on Good Friday, March 29, 2002 and will continue over Easter Sunday and end on Thursday, April 4, 2002. There are still many great deals on flights to San Diego that week. We're holding the San Diego Regional at the Sheraton Harbor Island Hotel in San Diego, across from the airport and on the beach! We've moved from the Town & Country Hotel where we've held the tournament the last several years. There are two towers and we will be playing bridge in the West Tower. There is a free shuttle from the airport (across the street) and all the major rental car agencies (San Diego has very good rental prices) are within walking distance. Parking at the hotel is $5/day with full in/out privileges. Please visit their site for further information. Reservations: (877) 734-2726 http://www.greathotels.com/states/ca/sandiego/hotel5.htm Our playing site is very warm and comfortable. Our ACBL Tournament Directors have assured us that everyone's questions will be answered, that they will be readily available for our bridge needs, as well as helpful in providing answers about the new playing area. The directors are committed to upholding the customer service standards outlined by the ACBL, (http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1828&PID=9954), which includes a pleasant greeting, a "please" and a "thank you"J. The weather is usually very nice in San Diego at the end of March. We have a unique location, in that we're across the main road from the airport, but on a quiet street along the ocean. All of the restaurants, hotels and marinas are on the south side of Harbor Island Drive, and a beautiful walking sidewalk is on the north side, which is a great walk along the ocean, the entire length of Harbor Island Drive. Harbor Island Drive is 1.6 miles long, from west to east. On the west end is Tom Ham's Lighthouse, a great restaurant that's been there since 1971. They have a restaurant, bar, piano bar, karaoke nights, and discounted prices on early dinners at 6:00 pm Sunday thru Fridays. Happy Hour is from 4 - 7 pm and Donna Cote plays the piano from 5 - 8 pm Wed, Thu and Fri. Please visit the website to see the menu. This restaurant is ½ mile from the playing area. http://www.tomhamslighthouse.com/ Next along the road, going toward the Sheraton, is Harbor Island Marina which is a full service marina with a deli, restaurant and liquor store which harbors a few hundred yachts and boats. http://www.harborislandwest.com/ Next to the Marina and ¼ mile from the Sheraton playing site is the Boathouse Restaurant. This is one of San Diego's finest restaurants with very reasonable prices. Visit their website to see the menu. http://www.boathouserestaurant.com/ Next is a Hilton Hotel. The hotel features spectacular water view rooms and suites with private furnished balconies with a restaurant and lounge overlooking the marina. www.sandiegoairport.hilton.com/ Next is the Sheraton West Tower where we will be playing bridge. Going East from the Sheraton is the Sunroad Marina. The marina has tours as well as a health club and delicatessen. http://www.sdmarina.com/ Walking further east is the parking lot for airport employees. Immediately east of the parking lot is the Cabrillo Isle Marina. The Marina has a deli and bar. http://www.cabrilloisle.com/ Another marina is next, Marina Cortez which includes a laundry, deli, bar, liquor store as well as a health spa. At the very east end of Harbor Drive, a little less than a mile from the Sheraton, are three wonderful restaurants, Reuben's, Reuben E Lee and Jareds. Jared's is truly one of San Diego's finest restaurants specializing in steaks and seafood. The Reuben E Lee features casual waterfront dining in an 1880s-style riverboat. Reuben's lunch menu is one of San Diego's finest. Visit the website to see a list of the menu items. http://www.islandsedge.com/ Tournament information can be found at http://sandiegoregional.acbld22.com/ . The tournament schedule can be found at http://sandiegoregional.acbld22.com/schedule/ . If you have questions, please feel free to send an e-mail to: Al Schuster, Tournament Manager, al@acbld22.com , (760) 931-0276. Ann-Dixon-Wood, Partnerships, (760) 749-1884. Or general questions and comments e-mail, d22@acbld22.com . We look forward to seeing you and thanks for your support. District 22 Board of Directors -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 06:24:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23JOC806921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:24:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g23JO1H06887 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:24:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2479.bb.online.no [80.212.217.175]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA01430 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:14:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:14:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gosh, It just happens that I sort my hand before restoring it to the board. I can think of several reasons why, but it has never struck me that I might receive a nasty question from TD and possibly a procedural penalty for causing another table to take an adjusted score? ("Director! I received this hand sorted!!!") Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. > > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "In this way some of the characteristics of the > father are more near to him, others more remote > from him considered simply as a parent and not > in reference to his accidental qualities (as for > instance if the parent is a scholar or the > neighbour of some particular person)." > 'Generation of Animals', Aristotle. > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nancy Dressing" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled > > > > I don't think any law has been violated by passing > > with an eleven point hand. Isn't one allowed to > > deviate from partnership understandings as long > > as partner is fooled as are the opponents? > > Nancy > > > > +=+ Surely I must be dense this morning. Certainly > I think there are questions to ask (as Colonel Schoder > says) before jumping to conclusions and decisions. > The lady passed because she received the hand > sorted? What inference did she draw from this? Since > she admits that was her reason for passing, and since > I do not believe the order of the cards in the hand > when it is received is AI on which to base an action, > there are grounds* in my view for disallowing the result > on the board. But other than that, does anyone > suggest a basis in law for intervention by the Director? > If the 1NT opener (15-17) proves to be psychic we > have the good old-fashioned 'red' psyche situation - > Law of Coincidence and all that. (1NT = 12-14 to pass > is a matter of judgement, the hand sounds thin). And if > the opener is genuine, the pass gets a good result, > the mere fact of passing is no basis on which to adjust > the score. So more info., questions and answers, > please. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > * note:'accidentally receives' - to apply Law 16B here > we must interpret 'accidental' according to the > teachings of Aristotle = "not essential to the nature > of (the hand)" .as indeed the sequence of the cards > in it is not. [ :-) but foreseeing a challenge since I > reread the Law before I wrote] > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 06:47:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23JlQQ07281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:47:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f103.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.103]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23JlIH07277 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:47:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 11:37:23 -0800 Received: from 172.146.117.230 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:37:23 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.146.117.230] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 11:37:23 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2002 19:37:23.0310 (UTC) FILETIME=[D748E8E0:01C1C2EA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >+=+ I dislike the statement "you have to give a >score for that round". It is shorthand. The actual >requirement is to provide for comparability >between scores that are to be compared, as for >ranking. To divorce the measure of compensation >from the proportions of the possible maximum >scores obtainable, in relation to each other, and >the performance is, for me, utterly illogical. But >we are not comparing how well people play, we >are comparing how successful they are. > ~ G ~ +=+ If in a pairs match you mean comparing percentages of won masterpoints vs available matchpoints to win, then the values are rankings are directly equivalent if you assign a pair their session score during a sitout compared to no score factor at all. But we had it by some regulations that unscheduled sitouts are met with an Ave+, unless I have misunderstood again. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 06:53:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23Jr9Y07297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:53:09 +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 (f147.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.147]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23Jr2H07293 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:53:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 11:43:06 -0800 Received: from 172.146.117.230 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:43:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.146.117.230] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 11:43:06 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Mar 2002 19:43:06.0652 (UTC) FILETIME=[A3EEBDC0:01C1C2EB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Richard Willey" >Suppose my partnership has the following set of agreements: > >A 2D opening shows any hand with primary hearts or primary spades, >5332/6331/6332 shape, and 6-10 HCP. > >I define a 2H opening shows any hand with 5-6 hearts, 0-3 spades, and >6-10 HCP but denies any hand suitable for a 2D opening. > >By inference, this means that the 2H opening promises a 4+ card holding >in either clubs or diamonds. > >If we following Marvin's line of reasoning, the 2H opening would not be >conventional, because the requirement to hold a minor is inferential, >falling out of the structure of other parts of the system rather than an >explicit part of the definition of the opening. Overheard at a recent regional: "Only positive inferences have to be disclosed; your opponents have to deduce the negative inferences for themselves." Personally, it boiled my blood, but I'd rather have a second opinion. If I asked you or your partner about a 2H opening, would you be obligated to immediately and freely explain that it promises a 4 card minor? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 06:56:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23JuOK07309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:56:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from randall.mail.atl.earthlink.net (randall.mail.atl.earthlink.net [207.69.200.237]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23JuGH07305 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 06:56:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from smui04.slb.mindspring.net ([199.174.114.26]) by randall.mail.atl.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16hbw8-0001Xl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 03 Mar 2002 14:46:24 -0500 Received: by smui04.slb.mindspring.net id OAA0000021234; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:46:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 14:46:24 -0500 From: To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Bridge Pro Tour - San Diego Regional - $4,000 ! Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 24.234.153.231 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk District 22 is proud to be host to the Bridge Pro Tour during our San Diego Easter Regional. The Press Announcement is duplicated below. Two qualifying events are being played at 9:00 am on Monday April 1st and Tuesday, April 2nd. The finals will be played at 9:00 am on Wednesday April 3rd and Thursday April 4th. This is an individual movement, which means you will play each round with a different player. This is a wonderful opportunity for those aspiring players to partner with the experts and pros, learn to play better bridge, as well as have an opportunity to win prize money. The entry fee is only $100. First prize is $4,000. The final 32 players will be guaranteed at least $100 in prize money. The finals of this event will be broadcast over the Internet at www.bridgebase.com . Surrounding this grand event is the San Diego Easter Regional. The Regional starts on Good Friday, March 29th and runs through Thursday, April 4th, 2002. This year the host site is across from the San Diego Airport at the Sheraton Harbor Island Hotel. Flights are still available to San Diego and prices still inexpensive. Please visit the sites below to find out more information, the schedule, and the wonderful restaurants that are close to the hotel which is on the beautiful Pacific Ocean and five minutes from downtown, sunny, San Diego. Information http://sandiegoregional.acbld22.com/ Schedule http://sandiegoregional.acbld22.com/schedule/ Restaurants http://sandiegoregional.acbld22.com/Hi2.htm Bridge Pro Tour http://sandiegoregional.acbld22.com/protour/moneytourSDad.htm District 22 Web Site http://www.acbld22.com/ Partnerships: http://www.acbld22.com/partners/ We hope to see you in San Diego! Sincerely, District 22 Board of Directors Press Announcement: Bridge Pro Tour Announces a $10,000 Bonus Pool February 19, San Bernadino, CA-Jim Kirkham, president of Bridge Pro Tour, Inc. announced the prize money bridge tour, which began in 2001, would add a Bonus Pool to reward those who achieve the top 32 rank in the $60,000 Bridge Pro Tour which has stops in San Diego, CA; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA; Santa Clara, CA; and Reno, NV. "Last year Eddie Rose won our kickoff tour," stated Kirkham, "and besides the $4,750 prized money he won in events, he only received glory. For this year, we want to reward support of the circuit in a tangible way. If we have a sponsor the bonus pool will be raised, but the minimum distribution will be $10,000 for 2002." "Some might ask why Bridge Pro Tour, Inc. is putting up more prize money and a bonus pool," stated Sally Lix, CEO of Bridge Pro Tour, Inc., "but we believe in bridge and we are putting our money where our mouth is. Like Michael Shuster winner of the $10,000 Reno Open, who stated he wanted to teach bridge to young people to keep the game of bridge alive, we believe this great game is in dire need of support. We are doing what we can to make bridge grow and continue." Anyone who attends one of the 5 Regionals where BPT, Inc. events are staged can enter the event and support this new concept in bridge. Last year 113 individual prize money awards were made and 220 separate entries were paid on the tour. "Our goal for 2002 is to have 750 entries in our tour events," stated Jim Kirkham, "Rome wasn't built in a day, but we are going to try and build this tour as quickly as possible." The Western Conference and a number of individuals who believe in the future of bridge for our children as well as for our maturing adult players support Bridge Pro Tour, Inc. According to Sally Lix, CEO, "We had all levels of players our first year. Because we play the Standard American Yellow Card, basically simple bridge, anyone can play and anyone has a chance of winning. We had a different winner at each event last year!" BPT Bonus Pool Without a Sponsor 1. $4,000 2. $2,500 3. $1,100 4. $500 5. $250 6. $200 7. 150 8. 100 9-32. 50 $12,000 BPT Prize Money 1. $4,000 9. $ 100 17. $ 100 25. $ 100 2. 2,000 10. 100 18. 100 26. 100 3. 1,000 11. 100 19. 100 27. 100 4. 500 12. 100 20. 100 28. 100 5. 150 13. 100 21. 100 29. 100 6. 150 14. 100 22. 100 30. 100 7. 100 15. 100 23. 100 31. 100 8. 100 16. 100 24. 100 32. 100 Total $10,400 Qualifying Prize Money Session Finish Prize Money(2X) 1. $500 2. $250 1. $250 2. $125 3. $ 50 Total $1,600 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 07:14:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23KDnN07330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:13:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g23KDfH07326 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:13:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 9.102.11722511 (4313); Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:03:32 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <102.11722511.29b3db94@aol.com> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:03:32 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. To: svenpran@online.no CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_102.11722511.29b3db94_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_102.11722511.29b3db94_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bravo!! Kojak --part1_102.11722511.29b3db94_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bravo!!

Kojak --part1_102.11722511.29b3db94_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 Mon Mar 4 08:40:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23Le8U14104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:40:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23LdxH14078 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:39:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g23LU8H17663 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:30:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005501c1c2fa$961ed4a0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 13:14:41 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" < > >From: "Marvin L. French" > >When a partnership opens 2NT or 2C with a standard-shape big notrump > >hand, isn't it obvious that a natural 3NT opening *must* be based on a > >long solid minor? > > No, it isn't. 3NT could be based on a long, solid major. It could be > based on 25-26 HCP, balanced. Nothing prohibits players from playing > more-or-less any conventions they'd like, even if you'd say they don't make > much bridge sense. > Well, anyway, putting a restriction or requirement on a notrump opening is a treatment, not a convention, as long as the bidder's hand is notrump-oriented and the restriction/requirement does not point to a specific suit.. If my 1NT opening denies a 5-card major or a 6-card minor, that does not make it a convention. If it merely denies four spades, then it's a convention. 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 Mar 4 09:13:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23MDKb20458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:13:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g23MDBH20426 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:13:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g23M3JH23726; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:03:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006a01c1c2ff$38f03580$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] San Diego Easter Regional (Mar 29 - Apr 4) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:03:10 -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 Wirt, This is not a proper subject for BLML, a group mainly concerned with the discussion of bridge laws and regulations. The rec.games.bridge newsgroup would be a better place for it, although I don't remember seeing bridge tournament advertisements there either. You might want to get the name right. San Diego has no particular claim to this regional, which could be held anywhere in this area. It's the 57th annnual Pacific Southwest Regional, a once-great tournament that was held in its early years at the beautiful Hotel Del Coronado in the nearby city of Coronado. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Wirt Gilliam wrote: > San Diego Easter Regional > > We're happy to announce that our San Diego Regional is starting on Good Friday, March 29, 2002 and will continue over Easter Sunday and end on Thursday, April 4, 2002. There > are still many great deals on flights to San Diego that week. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 09:22:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23MMQ021781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:22:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23MMGH21752 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:22:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from pp-xp ([10.90.16.33]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA10402 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 23:05:34 +0100 (MET) From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 23:12:36 +0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" X-Mailer: Opera 6.0 build 1010 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following hand came up yesterday [at 1:45 am :( ]: Bd 8 - W - none KT752 93 T5 9532 83 AQ4 QJT8752 4 32 AQ9874 J6 KT4 J96 AK6 KJ6 AQ87 W N E S 2D(1) P 2H(2) x (1) weak two in a major, P 2S 2NT x or 22-23 balanced, or 3H P P x AP 8-11 with 5-5 in minors (2) pass or correct (both 2D and 2H were alerted; there was no agreement about 2NT) N complained immediately after the explanation that the minor two-suiter made W´s opening an illegal convention. I directed the players to continue and told them I would award an adjusted score if the possibility of the minor two-suiter caused damage. Under Austrian regulations the two-suiter would be OK if it promised 10 or more HCPs (and not 13 as in the WBF regulations). N called m back to the table after W had made 9 tricks. I asked him in what way he felt damaged by the possibility of the two-suiter, and he told me that had he known for sure that W held a H weak two, he would have been able to bid 3H over 2H, showing spades and an minor, so that it would have been impossible for W to do so. I found this not quite convincing as IMO he had this information when W passed the double of 2H. No damage - no indemnity under L12: So I decided to let the score stand, with a PP to EW for using a (slightly) illegal convention. Now, I wonder if this was correct? Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 09:43:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23MhKR24526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:43:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g23MhCH24522 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:43:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g23MXKH29347; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:33:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <008401c1c303$6a4353c0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:12:57 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" < > > Overheard at a recent regional: "Only positive inferences have to be > disclosed; your opponents have to deduce the negative inferences for > themselves." Personally, it boiled my blood, but I'd rather have a second > opinion. If I asked you or your partner about a 2H opening, would you be > obligated to immediately and freely explain that it promises a 4 card minor? Everything must be explained on request, even though there may be no requirement for disclosure in the absence of a request. For instance, ACBL members are expected to understand that a 1D/1H/1S opening by Precision players denies 16 HCP or more. There is no Alert or other disclosure required, as it is an inference that players should be able to make on their own. If asked to explain their auction, however, then of course the information must be "immediately and freely" provided by the opponents. 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 Mar 4 10:07:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23N71024547 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:07:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23N6rH24543 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:06:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g23Mv0H03963; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:57:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Sven Pran" , "BLML" References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:56:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Sven Pran" > Gosh, > It just happens that I sort my hand before restoring > it to the board. I can think of several reasons why, > but it has never struck me that I might receive a > nasty question from TD and possibly a procedural > penalty for causing another table to take an > adjusted score? > ("Director! I received this hand sorted!!!") > This should be required of everyone. Most people sort their hands when taking them from the board, so no extra effort would be required. As it stands now, many players are passing to the next table a record of the order in which they played their cards. When I was kibitzing a couple of friends in the National Men's Pairs many years ago, a very high-ranking opponent doubled his RHO's 2NT opening with S-xx H-AKxxxxx D-xx C-xx and ran the first seven tricks. Had his hand perhaps been in the order xx xx xx xxxxxKA when he picked it up? 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 Mar 4 10:39:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23Nd0x29629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:39:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23NcqH29625 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:38:53 +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 SAA06186 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:29:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA24575 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:29:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:29:01 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203032329.SAA24575@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Enjoy Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > This reading of the convention definition asserts that a 3NT bid which > says "I am fairly sure that I can take nine tricks in notrump" is a > convention. The 1997 definition, read literally, clearly makes a 3NT opening (or rebid for that matter) that promises a solid suit a convention. > If the definition says it is (I don't believe it does), then > it is not conveying the sense of what bridge players consider a > convention to be. Probably true. > Fix it. Easier said than done, alas. There is far from universal agreement on where the boundary should be drawn, and even once the boundary is determined, putting it into words is very difficult. We tried, long ago, on BLML and never came up with anything very satisfactory. > A natural 1m opening denies a longer major suit, which is surely > "something else unrelated to the call." Does that make 1m a convention? Yes, no doubt at all under a literal reading of the 1997 definition. (The exact phrase is "a meaning other than" various things, and denying a longer major isn't one of the things.) However, there is a WBFLC interpretation that says, more or less, that the definition is not to be read literally. Where that leaves us is where we always were in reality: a convention is whatever some ruling authority says it is. "I know one when I see one." The ACBL convention charts do not contemplate that "natural" one-bids are conventions. As you say, alert rules are not closely related to 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 Mon Mar 4 10:44:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g23NiHZ29645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:44:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g23Ni9H29641 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:44:09 +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 SAA06260 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:34:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA24717 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:34:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:34:18 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203032334.SAA24717@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > Overheard at a recent regional: "Only positive inferences have to be > disclosed; your opponents have to deduce the negative inferences for > themselves." Who said this? Perhaps the person should have another look at L75C, which says: When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. The significant word is "all," and there is no distinction between positive and negative inferences. I suppose one could argue that "to him" is also significant. There may not be a requirement to disclose inferences that one hasn't discovered yet. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 11:16:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g240Fr629673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:15:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g240FiH29669 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:15:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from nyc.rr.com (66-65-66-59.nyc.rr.com [66.65.66.59]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id g2404Blu021668 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:04:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C82BA5C.C87E7F43@nyc.rr.com> Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:05:48 -0500 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-WorldNet (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] Sorting at the end of the hand References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: "(Sorting) should be required of everyone. Most people sort their hands when taking them from the board, so no extra effort would be required." I believe that people who think sorting should be required of everyone are under the impression that everyone sorts their hand the same way (if at all). I don't think that is true. I'm sure there are people who alternate black and red, people who have red / red / black / black, maybe even some who use S / H / D / C, and some who have no set pattern. The aim is to remove the order of cards played. Is it really so hard to give a quick shuffle before restoring one's cards to the pocket (after agreeing on the score)? Most people do this after a passed out board already. Even if the hand arrives sorted in a way that everyone can agree on, then one is practically forced to count one's cards without any rearrangement. For instance, you could no longer count a packet of four, a packet of four on top of that, and a packet of five on top of those without rearrangement. No, count me as a very strong vote against sorting. I have no desire to sort at the beginning and end of each hand. The only time I consider it proper is if the person next to receive my cards has some sort of difficulty or handicap and I have been requested to sort on his behalf. "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > Gosh, > > It just happens that I sort my hand before restoring > > it to the board. I can think of several reasons why, > > but it has never struck me that I might receive a > > nasty question from TD and possibly a procedural > > penalty for causing another table to take an > > adjusted score? > > ("Director! I received this hand sorted!!!") > > > This should be required of everyone. Most people sort their hands when > taking them from the board, so no extra effort would be required. As > it stands now, many players are passing to the next table a record of > the order in which they played their cards. When I was kibitzing a > couple of friends in the National Men's Pairs many years ago, a very > high-ranking opponent doubled his RHO's 2NT opening with S-xx > H-AKxxxxx D-xx C-xx and ran the first seven tricks. Had his hand > perhaps been in the order xx xx xx xxxxxKA when he picked it up? > > 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/ -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 11:38:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g240cO829704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:38:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g240cGH29700 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:38:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-adsl-199-224-119-236.epix.net [199.224.119.236]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2001112001/PL) with SMTP id g240SKET020750 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:28:21 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 19:28:26 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <2df58u8mq1i1amm7opkl215gtb2ot8fdk1@4ax.com> References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 3 Mar 2002 14:56:52 -0800, Marvin French wrote: > >From: "Sven Pran" > >> Gosh, >> It just happens that I sort my hand before restoring >> it to the board. I can think of several reasons why, >> but it has never struck me that I might receive a >> nasty question from TD and possibly a procedural >> penalty for causing another table to take an >> adjusted score? >> ("Director! I received this hand sorted!!!") >> >This should be required of everyone. Most people sort their hands when >taking them from the board, so no extra effort would be required. As >it stands now, many players are passing to the next table a record of >the order in which they played their cards. There are those such as myself who prefer to shuffle their hands, rather than sort them, before passing them to the next table. While this may be a minor inconvenience for the next player when compared to the "sorters", it does have the advantage of possibly misleading the occasional sneaky !@#$%^&* who is paying attention to the order of the cards when he takes them out of the board. 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 Mar 4 12:31:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g241Uh629760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:30:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail4.nc.rr.com ([24.93.67.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g241UaH29756 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:30:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from HPAuthorizedCustomer ([66.26.18.82]) by mail4.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:21:08 -0500 Message-ID: <002501c1c31a$9c9a2bc0$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> From: "Nancy Dressing" To: "BLML" References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 20:19:20 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am so happy you sent this comment. I had it all written out this AM and decided not to send it. Basically, what I was going to say was that we have a gal in our club who always sorts her cards before returning them to the board. She has not only now counted her hand but double checked to make sure her hand is correct. It is also ready the next player who might have a sight problem. (how wonderful it would be if we all did this!). This poor lady would never get to bid if she was receiving the boards from our player!!! However, I think the directors involved should have taken the few minutes that would have been involved to tell this player that some people do this and she should not assume that there was hand discussion at the previous table. No feelings would have been hurt and perhaps a steady player would have been added to the game rather than one sent away. We often forget that we, as directors, are a major contact with our players and are responsible for their comfort and enjoyment when playing in our games. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 2:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. > Gosh, > It just happens that I sort my hand before restoring > it to the board. I can think of several reasons why, > but it has never struck me that I might receive a > nasty question from TD and possibly a procedural > penalty for causing another table to take an > adjusted score? > ("Director! I received this hand sorted!!!") > > Sven > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan Endicott" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, March 03, 2002 12:25 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. > > > > > > > > Grattan Endicott > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > "In this way some of the characteristics of the > > father are more near to him, others more remote > > from him considered simply as a parent and not > > in reference to his accidental qualities (as for > > instance if the parent is a scholar or the > > neighbour of some particular person)." > > 'Generation of Animals', Aristotle. > > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nancy Dressing" > > To: "BLML" > > Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 9:28 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled > > > > > > > I don't think any law has been violated by passing > > > with an eleven point hand. Isn't one allowed to > > > deviate from partnership understandings as long > > > as partner is fooled as are the opponents? > > > Nancy > > > > > > +=+ Surely I must be dense this morning. Certainly > > I think there are questions to ask (as Colonel Schoder > > says) before jumping to conclusions and decisions. > > The lady passed because she received the hand > > sorted? What inference did she draw from this? Since > > she admits that was her reason for passing, and since > > I do not believe the order of the cards in the hand > > when it is received is AI on which to base an action, > > there are grounds* in my view for disallowing the result > > on the board. But other than that, does anyone > > suggest a basis in law for intervention by the Director? > > If the 1NT opener (15-17) proves to be psychic we > > have the good old-fashioned 'red' psyche situation - > > Law of Coincidence and all that. (1NT = 12-14 to pass > > is a matter of judgement, the hand sounds thin). And if > > the opener is genuine, the pass gets a good result, > > the mere fact of passing is no basis on which to adjust > > the score. So more info., questions and answers, > > please. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > * note:'accidentally receives' - to apply Law 16B here > > we must interpret 'accidental' according to the > > teachings of Aristotle = "not essential to the nature > > of (the hand)" .as indeed the sequence of the cards > > in it is not. [ :-) but foreseeing a challenge since I > > reread the Law before I wrote] > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 4 13:34:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g242YH629798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:34:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g242YAH29794 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:34:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA15454 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:36:23 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 13:22:41 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:18:03 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/03/2002 01:22:59 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>Overheard at a recent regional: "Only positive inferences have >>to be disclosed; your opponents have to deduce the negative >>inferences for themselves." Personally, it boiled my blood, but >>I'd rather have a second opinion. If I asked you or your >>partner about a 2H opening, would you be obligated to >>immediately and freely explain that it promises a 4 card minor? Marvin French replied: >Everything must be explained on request, even though there may be >no requirement for disclosure in the absence of a request. > >For instance, ACBL members are expected to understand that a >1D/1H/1S opening by Precision players denies 16 HCP or more. >There is no Alert or other disclosure required, as it is an >inference that players should be able to make on their own. If >asked to explain their auction, however, then of course the >information must be "immediately and freely" provided by the >opponents. I support Todd's view, instead of Marv's. For example, in the Precision-style system I play, auctions often proceed 1S opening bid from me, and then a response of Pass from pard. Even if ABF members were expected to understand that Pass could have good values, since my 1S is limited, I still Alert the Pass anyway because of its _unusual_ negative inference. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 13:50:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g242oYk01141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:50:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g242oOH01109 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:50:24 +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 g242eWI20259 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:40:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001401c1c325$f34b7720$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <3C82BA5C.C87E7F43@nyc.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorting at the end of the hand Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 18:34:22 -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: "Michael Kopera" > Marvin French wrote: "(Sorting) should be required of everyone. Most > people sort their hands when taking them from the board, so no extra > effort would be required." > > I believe that people who think sorting should be required of everyone > are under the impression that everyone sorts their hand the same way (if > at all). I don't think that is true. I'm sure there are people who > alternate black and red, people who have red / red / black / black, > maybe even some who use S / H / D / C, and some who have no set pattern. > The aim is to remove the order of cards played. Is it really so hard to > give a quick shuffle before restoring one's cards to the pocket (after > agreeing on the score)? Most people do this after a passed out board > already. There is no reasonable way to detect a failure to obey that regulation. If there were, I would be for it. > > Even if the hand arrives sorted in a way that everyone can agree on, > then one is practically forced to count one's cards without any > rearrangement. For instance, you could no longer count a packet of four, > a packet of four on top of that, and a packet of five on top of those > without rearrangement. You could still do it, if you don't mind the reordering. > > No, count me as a very strong vote against sorting. I have no desire to > sort at the beginning and end of each hand. The only time I consider it > proper is if the person next to receive my cards has some sort of > difficulty or handicap and I have been requested to sort on his behalf. Okay, so a little extra effort would be required for those who can't keep the cards in the same order when counting or have an odd way of sorting the cards. I, for instance, would mix the cards up a little to keep important cards off the ends. I count my cards in packets of 3, 3, 3, and 4 under the table, while keeping them in the same order. Is that difficult? People who count cards in packets on the table often flash enough of their faces to present a security problem. Maybe my suggestion would be better for senior games, in which hand-sorting before play often shows too much to an opponent, and a pre-sorted hand would be welcomed by many. The main point is that information is being passed by those who do not shuffle their cards at the end of a deal, and there is no easy way to enforce a reordering. When sorting is required, failure to do so is rather obvious. 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 Mar 4 16:21:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g245KZC28146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:20:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g245KPH28114 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:20:26 +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 g245AYI20314 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:10:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001c01c1c33a$e8c923a0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <2df58u8mq1i1amm7opkl215gtb2ot8fdk1@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 21:03:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Brian Meadows" > > There are those such as myself who prefer to shuffle their hands, > rather than sort them, before passing them to the next table. > > While this may be a minor inconvenience for the next player when > compared to the "sorters", it does have the advantage of possibly > misleading the occasional sneaky !@#$%^&* who is paying attention > to the order of the cards when he takes them out of the board. Better yet, when a play didn't work out well (e.g., singleton lead, finesse for a queen), arrange the cards to look like it did! Singleton first, trump next, things like that. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 17:24:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g246OM309669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:24:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g246OEH09643 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:24:14 +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 RAA10147 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:26:26 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 17:12:43 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:07:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/03/2002 05:13:01 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g246OFH09649 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: [snip] >And those who react to questions with "...I don't have to explain >anything to you, I want a committee...." "...I'll have to work that >out later..." ".. ..you wouldn't understand the complexity of this >situation since you don't play bridge as well as I do..." quickly find >from my responses that the game is played at the table, not at or by >a committee.  ACBLers take particular note of this last sentence >'cause it ain't true in your house at the moment. > >I applaud those who find needs for better language, clarity in >writing, appropriate English, and better organization in the FLB. >I'm sorry for those whose metier is to use those discrepancies in >presentation for changing the nature of our game.  (The thread on >insufficient bids is one that quickly comes to mind -- seems that >some think that you can intentionally make an insufficient bid since >the law appears not to clearly indicate that this is a violation of >the game of bridge, [snip] I am wholeheartedly in agreement that: a) bridge is a game, and b) the game should be played at the table, not at a committee. I also agree that bridge-lawyers could be held in check by the Laws being better written. Where Kojak and I part ways is that I believe that the literal meaning of the Laws should be enforced until they are rewritten. *If* (and I note that this point is undecided) a literal reading of the Laws permits deliberate insufficient bids, then deliberate insufficient bids should be permitted in practice, until the Laws are rewritten with a specific prohibition of them. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 17:40:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g246edt12773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:40:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g246eUH12742 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:40:30 +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 g246UcI16665 for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:30:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005301c1c346$187c2240$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Fw: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:30:28 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > >>Overheard at a recent regional: "Only positive inferences have > >>to be disclosed; your opponents have to deduce the negative > >>inferences for themselves." Personally, it boiled my blood, but > >>I'd rather have a second opinion. If I asked you or your > >>partner about a 2H opening, would you be obligated to > >>immediately and freely explain that it promises a 4 card minor? > Marvin French replied: > >Everything must be explained on request, even though there may be > >no requirement for disclosure in the absence of a request. > > > >For instance, ACBL members are expected to understand that a > >1D/1H/1S opening by Precision players denies 16 HCP or more. > >There is no Alert or other disclosure required, as it is an > >inference that players should be able to make on their own. If > >asked to explain their auction, however, then of course the > >information must be "immediately and freely" provided by the > >opponents. > I support Todd's view, instead of Marv's. Not really my view, as I have no strong opinion about this. I was just going along with what seems to be the view of the ACBL TD and AC organizations. It does seem to me that people who could make use of some inferential information are the same people who can make the proper inferences on their own. > For example, in the Precision-style system I play, auctions > often proceed 1S opening bid from me, and then a response of Pass > from pard. Even if ABF members were expected to understand that > Pass could have good values, since my 1S is limited, I still Alert > the Pass anyway because of its _unusual_ negative inference. Also it's a way to discourage balancing, I suppose. I think it's best to Alert only those things for which the SO requires an Alert, with the exception of "highly unusual and unexpected" (as the ACBL puts it) treatments. People who are responsible for the Alert regulations work very hard to establish what is or is not Alertable, and it's appropriate to follow what they prescribe even if over-Alerting is not subject to penalty. Alerts and their explanations are UI to partner, and minimizing UI is a good idea. Where I find insufficient disclosure is by declarers (or dummies) after the auction is over and before the opening lead. You have to drag out of them information concerning the auction (creating UI by your questions) when that information should have been volunteered. Also, there is an ethical dilemma when you don't need the information yourself but it is likely that an inexperienced partner could.make use of it. "Help suit game tries" are not Alertable in ACBL-land as long as they promise three cards in the suit. Are they bidding a suit that needs some help (e.g., KJxx), as I do, or a suit that needs a lot of help (e.g., 432)? I'm not asking for an Alert, but I am asking that the dummy volunteer this information before the opening lead is made. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Off to Houston March 6 to 15 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 18:43:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g247hEF24836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:43:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe55.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.211]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g247h6H24800 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:43:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 23:33:09 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [209.244.116.75] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <20020302200133.3c812f9d39d04@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] blml in Houston Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 01:33:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004A_01C1C31C.951B9D00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2002 07:33:09.0473 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5315510:01C1C34E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C1C31C.951B9D00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It occurred to me that it would be hospitable for me to offer my = knowledge of Houston as much as I can. Feel free to contact me by = phone: 713-524-4512. Regards roger pewick ------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C1C31C.951B9D00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 It occurred to me that it would = be=20 hospitable for me to offer my knowledge of Houston as = much as I=20 can.  Feel free to contact me by phone: 713-524-4512.
 
 
Regards
roger = pewick
------=_NextPart_000_004A_01C1C31C.951B9D00-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 18:53:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g247r8g26633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:53:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g247qxH26602 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:53:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.20.24] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16hn7g-000PJP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 07:43:05 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c1c350$abb74800$1814e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:45:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions > > > *If* (and I note that this point is undecided) a literal reading > of the Laws permits deliberate insufficient bids, then > deliberate insufficient bids should be permitted in practice, > until the Laws are rewritten with a specific prohibition of > them. > +=+ You do not have a problem, Richard. The Laws, read literally, do not allow of deliberate insufficient bids. Law 74A3 requires that players follow 'correct procedure'. An insufficient bid is not correct procedure.. A deliberate infringement of 74A3 is contrary to Law 72B2. ~ 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 Mar 4 18:58:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g247waS27674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:58:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com (mailout01.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g247wQH27637 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:58:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd08.sul.t-online.de by mailout01.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16hnCy-0000Ru-0C; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:48:32 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.82.208.209]) by fwd08.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16hnCr-0ATETAC; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 08:48:25 +0100 Message-ID: <3C8326C7.CBD7B180@t-online.de> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:48:23 +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] Brown Sticker - what now? References: 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 Petrus Schuster OSB schrieb: > > The following hand came up yesterday [at 1:45 am :( ]: > > Bd 8 - W - none > > KT752 > 93 > T5 > 9532 > > 83 AQ4 > QJT8752 4 > 32 AQ9874 > J6 KT4 > > J96 > AK6 > KJ6 > AQ87 > > W N E S > 2D(1) P 2H(2) x (1) weak two in a major, > P 2S 2NT x or 22-23 balanced, or > 3H P P x AP 8-11 with 5-5 in minors > (2) pass or correct > > (both 2D and 2H were alerted; there was no agreement about > 2NT) > N complained immediately after the explanation that the > minor two-suiter made W´s opening an illegal convention. I > directed the players to continue and told them I would award > an adjusted score if the possibility of the minor two-suiter > caused damage. > Under Austrian regulations the two-suiter would be OK if it > promised 10 or more HCPs (and not 13 as in the WBF > regulations). > N called m back to the table after W had made 9 tricks. I > asked him in what way he felt damaged by the possibility of > the two-suiter, and he told me that had he known for sure > that W held a H weak two, he would have been able to bid 3H > over 2H, showing spades and an minor, so that it would have > been impossible for W to do so. > I found this not quite convincing as IMO he had this > information when W passed the double of 2H. No damage - no > indemnity under L12: > So I decided to let the score stand, with a PP to EW for > using a (slightly) illegal convention. > Now, I wonder if this was correct? > > Regards, > Petrus > Hi Petrus, this looks like a matter of regulation, not of law. Since I am not familiar with the Austrian regulations on brown sticker conventions, I can`t rightly say wether you did well or not. I can only tell you (wether this helps or not) that the German regulations call for an automatic A+/A- ruling in such a case, regardless of consequential damage. Furthermore the offending pair may not use this convention in the ongoing event. For what it`s worth, brown sticker conventions are only permissible in team matches of at least 14 boards, which effectively restricts them to league play. Even the German championships have shorter matches, usually. 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 Mon Mar 4 20:35:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g249Z7615122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:35:07 +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 g249YvH15095 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:34:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g249P2O08120 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:25:02 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 09:25 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled 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: Robert E. Harris wrote: > Looks like a 16B3 case to me. Accidental unauthorized information. > Average plus to both sides. Of course, the person who passed with the > 11 HCP hand committed an offense. So some sort of penalty is in order, > but I don't know off the top of my head what law to refer to. 72B? > (Time to read the whole law book over again.) I think a penalty may be a little harsh if the person concerned informed the director of the problem after the hand. Playing teams last weak I picked up something like CK,SAKxxxx,HAx,DKx,CT8. Partner opened 1S and I realised immediately it was a trick two claim. Despite having read BLML for some time I was less than sure what to do. I knew that saying anything would give pard UI and considered 3 options. 1. Saying nothing immediately but telling opps at the end of the hand 2. Saying I felt the hand unplayable and explaining why 3. Saying "I have an ethical problem I can't explain yet" and then playing I think all the above choices are reasonable ones and I would regard penalising a player for making a "non-legal" one as over the top. The only TD was my partner (who played superbly throughout particularly in that 3N contract). FWIW I chose option 3 and then bid a Blackwood 4N, despite considering it the suggested call. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 22:05:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24B4kS24527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:04:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24B4aH24523 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:04:37 +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 KAA20814 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:54:39 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:54:08 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c835250.aa9.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.117 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 following hand came up yesterday [at 1:45 am :( ]: > >Bd 8 - W - none > > KT752 > 93 > T5 > 9532 > > 83 AQ4 > QJT8752 4 > 32 AQ9874 > J6 KT4 > > J96 > AK6 > KJ6 > AQ87 > > W N E S > 2D(1) P 2H(2) x (1) weak two in a major, > P 2S 2NT x or 22-23 balanced, or > 3H P P x AP 8-11 with 5-5 in minors > (2) pass or correct > >Under Austrian regulations the two-suiter would be OK if it >promised 10 or more HCPs (and not 13 as in the WBF >regulations). [ - Now this thread I will be watching with keen interest. I've come across several such "illegal" bids which cause disruption and yet the pair using them seem to get away with it. a few points 1) I can't state anywhere else in the world but in Ireland IF a bid is multi weak/strong the weak possibilities MUST have an anchor suit. My immediate reaction to reading this thread was that 2D is definitely (certainly in Irish terms) illegal and at best brown or hum. 2) "...a 2 suiter 10+ is legal". This bid has multi meanings and is not a 2 suiter, so I'm not sure that definition applies. Even then the range is outside the allowable therefore illegal. I don't know if hum/brown were allowed in the competition but I would not have given the benefit of the doubt to the convention users and ruled illegal bid. If illegal the subsequent auction and actions are irrelevant as they should not have occured. I have no idea what the ruling is but I would expect the NOS to be at least 60%+. 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 Mon Mar 4 22:15:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24BF4025528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:15:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24BEsH25494 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:14:55 +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 LAA23296 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:04:58 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:04:27 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorting at the end of the hand X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c8354bb.b78.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.117 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 Just a personal opinion I don't as a rule shuffle the cards when putting the cards back into the board but I should do so and will try to do so more often after reading this. As Marv says is takes soo little effort and its stops all the possible inuendo of dodgy calls at the other table as per this threads example. 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 Mon Mar 4 22:29:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24BTMo28062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:29:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24BTDH28028 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:29:13 +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 g24BJC017388; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:19:12 +0100 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g24BJC532413; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:19:12 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:19:12 +0100 (CET) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Karel cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? In-Reply-To: <3c835250.aa9.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Karel wrote: > >The following hand came up yesterday [at 1:45 am :( ]: > > > >Bd 8 - W - none 2D bid BSC/HUM according to the definitions for this event. > I have no idea what the ruling is but I would expect the NOS to be at > least 60%+. I'd simply go for table result or A+/A-, whichever is better for the NOS, plus a PP for the OS. The OS gets 2 minutes to adjust their CC, if they can't do this, they'll have to play WBF-standard (or something similar) for the remainder of the session. It is up to the OS to verify that their system is allowed in this event and, when in doubt, check with the TD. I don't think that it is reasonable to expect that the NOS has prepared a defence against a convention that cannot come up in this tournament, nor do I want to guess what the NOS would have done had they discussed the situation in advance. 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 Mon Mar 4 22:46:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24Bk6I01070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:46:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24BjjH01025 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:45:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16hqkx-0007zD-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:35:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 00:58:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >>From: "Richard Willey" >>Suppose my partnership has the following set of agreements: >> >>A 2D opening shows any hand with primary hearts or primary spades, >>5332/6331/6332 shape, and 6-10 HCP. >> >>I define a 2H opening shows any hand with 5-6 hearts, 0-3 spades, and >>6-10 HCP but denies any hand suitable for a 2D opening. >> >>By inference, this means that the 2H opening promises a 4+ card holding >>in either clubs or diamonds. >> >>If we following Marvin's line of reasoning, the 2H opening would not be >>conventional, because the requirement to hold a minor is inferential, >>falling out of the structure of other parts of the system rather than an >>explicit part of the definition of the opening. > > Overheard at a recent regional: "Only positive inferences have to be >disclosed; your opponents have to deduce the negative inferences for >themselves." Personally, it boiled my blood, but I'd rather have a second >opinion. If I asked you or your partner about a 2H opening, would you be >obligated to immediately and freely explain that it promises a 4 card minor? Yes. The principle of full disclosure is embodied in L75A. Negative inferences have always been a problem since "tricky" players have always used that as an excuse. similarly the best way to get the truth may be to ask about a call not made: nowadays the Laws show this to be acceptable. -- 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 Mar 4 22:46:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24Bk2i01062 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:46:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24BjhH01015 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:45:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16hqks-0007zE-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:35:49 +0000 Message-ID: <4fxEVJAGAsg8EwPm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 00:29:58 +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> <010901c1c064$73d9ca00$84053dd4@b0e7g1> <001901c1c06f$ca2f87e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00b201c1c092$6d3f2ea0$0e053dd4@b0e7g1> <00c001c1c0a0$acee8e20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <004701c1c193$c642bba0$d851e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <004701c1c193$c642bba0$d851e150@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" >> Unless you run things differently in Norway, this is >> not true. Certainly if a pair turns up to play in an >> English club, they expect there to be a roughly >> one-in-four chance of sitting out during the evening. >> It is part of the expectation of a game of duplicate >> bridge so it is not irregular. >+=+ A 'session' is an extended period of play during >which a number of boards, specified by the sponsoring >orgaization, is scheduled to be played. The schedule >may designate for any one partnership a different >number from another partnership; it does not include >any number of boards not due to be played. The >Director is the agent of the sponsoring organization. While this is true I do not see what relevance it has to whether a player expects to sit out. -- 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 Mar 4 22:46:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24Bk9801076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:46:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24BjlH01033 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:45:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16hqkx-0007zC-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:35:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 01:00:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions References: In-Reply-To: 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 g24BjoH01041 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com writes > In numerous threads that I've been monitoring (and keeping my hands > off) the key to the answer of what to do needed the actual facts of > what transpired at the table.  Too often, in order to make an > esoteric point, the positer has left out vital information. This is > particularly true when we run into posts that are for argument > purposes only, and have not happened in real life.  A recurrent > thought that occurs to me is why someone didn't ASK certain > questions at the table.  i.e. Why did you not bid? Why did you bid? > What did you think you were doing? A good example is the question of a hand with 53 cards. Ton and I made different assumptions as to where the card came from, leading to different conclusions. It is important to find this out: at the table I am sure that both Ton and I would find out. -- 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 Mar 4 22:46:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24Bk9Y01075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:46:09 +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-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 g24BjlH01034 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:45:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16hqks-0007zG-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:35:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 00:44:45 +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 Tim West-meads writes >I agree. But if I turned up to a Swiss pairs with six or more boards/ >round I would feel extremely surprised to be sitting out. I would expect >the organisers to have a stand-by pair (or co-opt passersby from the >streets) rather than allow it to happen. Alternatively the CoC might >allow for triangles with each pair sitting out 2 boards. Most EBU Swiss Pairs nowadays expect players to sit out eight boards rather than have a stand-by pair. In the North-West we have stand-by pairs. While I have considered triangles in Swiss Pairs currently the software would not allow it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 4 22:46:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24BkBw01078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:46:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g24BjmH01037 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:45:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16hqky-0007zH-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:35:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 00:49:52 +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: <001301c1c13e$7c47d4e0$d88d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <001301c1c13e$7c47d4e0$d88d8a90@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 >It may not be interesting to some BLML readers, but some of us >are intrigued that one of the basic tenets of bridge ("that a bid must >supersede the previous bid") is not in the Laws, although it used to be >in the Laws. Could there be some reason that this is omitted from the >Laws? One suggestion that I have seen in the past, and personally support, is that the Laws would be easier to understand if the first group of Laws told everyone how to play the game, and then later Laws tell everyone what to do when the first group of Laws is not followed. -- 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 Mar 4 23:10:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24C9rA04507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:09:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24C9gH04482 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:09:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2761.bb.online.no [80.212.218.201]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA24559 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:59:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:59:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >I agree. But if I turned up to a Swiss pairs with six or more boards/ > >round I would feel extremely surprised to be sitting out. I would expect > >the organisers to have a stand-by pair (or co-opt passersby from the > >streets) rather than allow it to happen. Alternatively the CoC might > >allow for triangles with each pair sitting out 2 boards. > > Most EBU Swiss Pairs nowadays expect players to sit out eight boards > rather than have a stand-by pair. In the North-West we have stand-by > pairs. > > While I have considered triangles in Swiss Pairs currently the > software would not allow it. By definition a Round is a part of a session played without progression of players. According to this definition exchanging at least one pair at a table with another pair makes it a new round. In a pairs tournament with an odd number of participating pairs there is no way you can avoid "sit-out" or "walk-over" for one pair in each round. This is not a matter of software, it is a matter of mathematics. (It is impossible to split a collection of an odd number of elements into subgroups each containing exactly two elements). 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 Mar 4 23:21:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24CKpg05977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:20:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24CKfH05953 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:20:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2900.bb.online.no [80.212.219.84]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA09183 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:10:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00de01c1c375$9c583160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 13:10:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >>Suppose my partnership has the following set of agreements: > >> > >>A 2D opening shows any hand with primary hearts or primary spades, > >>5332/6331/6332 shape, and 6-10 HCP. > >> > >>I define a 2H opening shows any hand with 5-6 hearts, 0-3 spades, and > >>6-10 HCP but denies any hand suitable for a 2D opening. > >> > >>By inference, this means that the 2H opening promises a 4+ card holding > >>in either clubs or diamonds. > >If I asked you or your partner about a 2H opening, would you be > >obligated to immediately and freely explain that it promises a 4 card minor? > > Yes. The principle of full disclosure is embodied in L75A. > Another frequently occurring example with strong club systems is the 1D opening bid, usually alerted and explained that it does not promise more than two diamonds. This is a very incomplete description, the correct description should be: Either natural (4+), or NT distribution without the strength for 1NT (nor 1C). 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 Mar 4 23:59:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24CxI412179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:59:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d08.mx.aol.com (imo-d08.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24Cx9H12157 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:59:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id d.192.3315324 (3851); Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:49:02 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <192.3315324.29b4c73e@aol.com> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 07:49:02 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_192.3315324.29b4c73e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_192.3315324.29b4c73e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/4/02 1:15:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes: > Where Kojak and I part ways is that I believe that the literal > meaning of the Laws should be enforced until they are rewritten. > > *If* (and I note that this point is undecided) a literal reading of > the Laws permits deliberate insufficient bids, then deliberate > insufficient bids should be permitted in practice, until the Laws > are rewritten with a specific prohibition of them. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > Where you and I part ways in the use of the word "literate" reading of the Laws. If Laws did not need interpretation, explanation, and definition in their usage we would not have need for Laws Committees/Commissions, lawyers, courts, appeals committees provided for in the Laws, and TDs to interpret the bridge Laws (see Law 81C5). IN fact we wouldn't even have BLML, would we?I can't help but find it outre to say that because intentional insufficient bids are not specifically forbidden by reading the printed word, they are therefore allowed as a part of my bidding system. However I respect your right to feel otherwise. Kojak --part1_192.3315324.29b4c73e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/4/02 1:15:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes:


Where Kojak and I part ways is that I believe that the literal
meaning of the Laws should be enforced until they are rewritten.

*If* (and I note that this point is undecided) a literal reading of
the Laws permits deliberate insufficient bids, then deliberate
insufficient bids should be permitted in practice, until the Laws
are rewritten with a specific prohibition of them.

Best wishes

Richard



Where you and I part ways in the use of the word "literate" reading of the Laws.  If Laws did not need interpretation, explanation, and definition in their usage we would not have need for Laws Committees/Commissions, lawyers, courts, appeals committees provided for in the Laws, and  TDs to interpret the bridge Laws (see Law 81C5).  IN fact we wouldn't even have BLML, would we?I can't help but find it outre to say that because intentional insufficient bids are not specifically forbidden by reading the printed word, they are therefore allowed as a part of my bidding system.

However I respect your right to feel otherwise.

Kojak --part1_192.3315324.29b4c73e_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 00:11:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24DBDN14283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:11:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24DB3H14263 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:11:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16hs5W-0003Oe-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:01:10 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020303165325.00b20e00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:02:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_571847==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_571847==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 06:07 PM 3/2/02, Schoderb wrote: >In numerous threads that I've been monitoring (and keeping my hands >off) the key to the answer of what to do needed the actual facts of >what transpired at the table. Too often, in order to make an esoteric >point, the positer has left out vital information. This is >particularly true when we run into posts that are for argument >purposes only, and have not happened in real life. A recurrent >thought that occurs to me is why someone didn't ASK certain questions >at the table. i.e. Why did you not bid? Why did you bid? What did you >think you were doing? > >The gurus like to take things in a vacuum, it demonstrates a higher >level of intelligence and ability I guess, when the answer is only as >far away as Why? In my limited 42 years in this business I've been >pleasantly surprised, and at all levels of play, that when asked, >players usually tell the truth, and are unable and unarmed to >immediately provide spurious reasons that make for problems and don't >surface until hours later in committee. Which is why our real-life TDs keep things humming along. They don't get paralyzed by trying to resolve situations on the purely theoretical level that our forum is often (and properly so) about, because they can and do get the facts on the ground in the heat of battle, and the facts usually tell them what to do. >Think what you may, but many times the players have helped to resolve >the problems by just a bit of investigation on my part. And those who >react to questions with "...I don't have to explain anything to you, I >want a committee...." "...I'll have to work that out later..." ".. >..you wouldn't understand the complexity of this situation since you >don't play brdige as well as I do..."quickly find from my responses >that the game is played at the table, not at or by a >committee. ACBLers take particular note of this last sentence 'cause >it ain't true in your house at the moment. There's a particular danger that committees, a step removed from the facts and not in the heat of battle, can get hung up on our beloved theoretical issues. They may sometimes find one way on a point of theory, even a closely conested one, when the facts on the ground clearly point the other way, and commit notable miscarriages of justice, as in "oh s--t". But, more insidiously, they give random justice on close calls when the director on the spot would give justice that, while still somewhat random, would at least be biased in the direction of true justice by proximity to the facts. This creates a tendency for more and more players to react as Kojak describes, becoming disputatious at the TD's attempts to get the facts, in the hope of seeing the facts made irrelevant in committee by burial under the legal points at issue. In other words, we get more and more bridge lawyers. Kojak rightfully charges ACBLers with having enough of them now that they are choking the system to a point at which our TDs are ineffective as adjudicators; all non-mechanical rulings get made in committee. This has caused a reaction: appeals committees made up of TDs rather than players are being tried in some events, and there's talk of giving TDs more referee-like powers to make uappealable calls. In the ideal world, TDs would make most of the adjudications, and players would accept them; appeals committees would serve as a backstop to prevent the occasional gross miscarriage of justice, and to deal with the rare cases where the facts work for both sides and the issue really does turn on some fine point of bridge judgment. But nobody knows how to get there, and pessimists in North America don't see getting rid of the bridge lawyers from bridge as any easier than getting rid of the real-life lawyers from real life. >I applaud those who find needs for better language, clarity in >writing, appropriate English, and better organization in the FLB. I'm >sorry for those whose metier is to use those discrepancies in >presentation for changing the nature of our game. (The thread on >insufficient bids is one that quickly comes to mind -- seems that some >think that you can intentionally make an insufficient bid since the >law appears not to clearly indicate that this is a violation of the >game of bridge, and violations are anathema). The thread on insufficient bids is a fine example of the sorts of angels-on-pins linguistic debates we indulge in here (and properly so); I don't think anyone here is planning on making any deliberate insufficient bids their next time out. But we all agree that improving the language of the law is a good thing, and such threads show us where, and why, and how. >As a member of the drafting sub-committee for the next Laws revision I >will staunchly advance the position that our game needs clearer >definition, explanation and regulation, but will remain hard to >convince that it's basic nature needs changing. In this forum, we point out what we believe to flaws in the Laws, both substantive and semantic, and suggest and debate solutions. Few if any of us think that the basic nature of the game needs changing -- indeed, we use "that would change the basic nature of the game" as an indictment so damning as to need no further support. At our best, we seek, through dialectic, an understanding of what the basic nature of our game is (at our worst, we resemble an unruly child-care center). If our debate serves to bring others to informed and reasonable opinions on the questions we discuss, they will, we trust, be better adjudicators, whether or not we agree with their choice of sides on any particular issue. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_571847==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At 06:07 PM 3/2/02, Schoderb wrote:

In numerous threads that I've been monitoring (and keeping my hands off) the key to the answer of what to do needed the actual facts of what transpired at the table.  Too often, in order to make an esoteric point, the positer has left out vital information. This is particularly true when we run into posts that are for argument purposes only, and have not happened in real life.  A recurrent thought that occurs to me is why someone didn't ASK certain questions at the table.  i.e. Why did you not bid? Why did you bid? What did you think you were doing?

The gurus like to take things in a vacuum, it demonstrates a higher level of intelligence and ability I guess, when the answer is only as far away as Why?  In my limited 42 years in this business I've been pleasantly surprised, and at all levels of play, that when asked, players usually tell the truth, and are unable and unarmed to immediately provide spurious reasons that make for problems and don't surface until hours later in committee.

Which is why our real-life TDs keep things humming along.  They don't get paralyzed by trying to resolve situations on the purely theoretical level that our forum is often (and properly so) about, because they can and do get the facts on the ground in the heat of battle, and the facts usually tell them what to do.

Think what you may, but many times the players have helped to resolve the problems by just a bit of investigation on my part.  And those who react to questions with "...I don't have to explain anything to you, I want a committee...."  "...I'll have to work that out later..." ".. ..you wouldn't understand the complexity of this situation since you don't play brdige as well as I do..."quickly find from my responses that the game is played at the table, not at or by a committee.  ACBLers  take particular note of this last sentence 'cause it ain't true in your house at the moment.

There's a particular danger that committees, a step removed from the facts and not in the heat of battle, can get hung up on our beloved theoretical issues.  They may sometimes find one way on a point of theory, even a closely conested one, when the facts on the ground clearly point the other way, and commit notable miscarriages of justice, as in "oh s--t".  But, more insidiously, they give random justice on close calls when the director on the spot would give justice that, while still somewhat random, would at least be biased in the direction of true justice by proximity to the facts.  This creates a tendency for more and more players to react as Kojak describes, becoming disputatious at the TD's attempts to get the facts, in the hope of seeing the facts made irrelevant in committee by burial under the legal points at issue.

In other words, we get more and more bridge lawyers.  Kojak rightfully charges ACBLers with having enough of them now that they are choking the system to a point at which our TDs are ineffective as adjudicators; all non-mechanical rulings get made in committee.  This has caused a reaction: appeals committees made up of TDs rather than players are being tried in some events, and there's talk of giving TDs more referee-like powers to make uappealable calls.  In the ideal world, TDs would make most of the adjudications, and players would accept them; appeals committees would serve as a backstop to prevent the occasional gross miscarriage of justice, and to deal with the rare cases where the facts work for both sides and the issue really does turn on some fine point of bridge judgment.  But nobody knows how to get there, and pessimists in North America don't see getting rid of the bridge lawyers from bridge as any easier than getting rid of the real-life lawyers from real life.

I applaud those who find needs for better language, clarity in writing, appropriate English, and better organization in the FLB.  I'm sorry for those whose metier is to use those discrepancies in presentation for changing the nature of our game.  (The thread on insufficient bids is one that quickly comes to mind -- seems that some think that you can intentionally make an insufficient bid since the law appears not to clearly indicate that this is a violation of the game of bridge, and violations are anathema). 

The thread on insufficient bids is a fine example of the sorts of angels-on-pins linguistic debates we indulge in here (and properly so); I don't think anyone here is planning on making any deliberate insufficient bids their next time out.  But we all agree that improving the language of the law is a good thing, and such threads show us where, and why, and how.

As a member of the drafting sub-committee for the next Laws revision I will staunchly advance the position that our game needs clearer definition, explanation and regulation, but will remain hard to convince that it's basic nature needs changing.

In this forum, we point out what we believe to flaws in the Laws, both substantive and semantic, and suggest and debate solutions.  Few if any of us think that the basic nature of the game needs changing -- indeed, we use "that would change the basic nature of the game" as an indictment so damning as to need no further support.  At our best, we seek, through dialectic, an understanding of what the basic nature of our game is (at our worst, we resemble an unruly child-care center).  If our debate serves to bring others to informed and reasonable opinions on the questions we discuss, they will, we trust, be better adjudicators, whether or not we agree with their choice of sides on any particular issue.


Eric Landau           &nbs= p;         ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive            = ;     (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_571847==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 00:32:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24DWBi17886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:32:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24DW1H17856 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:32:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16hsPp-0005x2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:22:09 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020304081535.00aa4e80@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:23:14 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] re: Enjoy In-Reply-To: <000801c1c2d8$8c5e4f80$c13467c0@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 12:26 PM 3/3/02, Richard wrote: >Suppose my partnership has the following set of agreements: > >A 2D opening shows any hand with primary hearts or primary spades, >5332/6331/6332 shape, and 6-10 HCP. > >I define a 2H opening shows any hand with 5-6 hearts, 0-3 spades, and >6-10 HCP but denies any hand suitable for a 2D opening. > >By inference, this means that the 2H opening promises a 4+ card holding >in either clubs or diamonds. > >If we following Marvin's line of reasoning, the 2H opening would not be >conventional, because the requirement to hold a minor is inferential, >falling out of the structure of other parts of the system rather than an >explicit part of the definition of the opening. > >Whether or not a bid is considered conventional should be based on the >set of hands shown by the bid rather than the specific wording used to >define that set of hands. Hopefully, this point should not be >controversial. I don't see it. Either a 2H opening that shows 5-6 hearts, 0-3 spades and 6-10 HCP is a convention or it isn't. IMO, neither whether or not you play a 2D opening that overlaps nor whether you agree that the 2D or the 2H call shall take precedence when the hand satisfies the conditions for either affects whether the 2H opening is itself conventional. 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 Mar 5 00:34:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24DYfO18303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:34:41 +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 (rc.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24DYVH18284 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:34:32 +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 OAA06770; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:23:45 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA18916; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:24:37 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020304142432.00a3b5c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:28:46 +0100 To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. In-Reply-To: <2df58u8mq1i1amm7opkl215gtb2ot8fdk1@4ax.com> References: <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:28 3/03/2002 -0500, Brian Meadows wrote: >While this may be a minor inconvenience for the next player when >compared to the "sorters", it does have the advantage of possibly >misleading the occasional sneaky !@#$%^&* who is paying attention >to the order of the cards when he takes them out of the board. AG : apart of countermeasures to sneakiness, this has an obvious advantage : presenting the cards randomly, as they should arrive when the hand is first played. Imagine you sorted your hand before putting it back into the board, but you missorted one card. Do you think the next player will find it funny ? It seems so natural, to avoid giving away any information, to give the cards to the next player in a random order. Come to think of it, if you sort your hand, the first card will usually remain the first, and this would give away precious information (especially if your leads vs suit and NT are different). 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 Mar 5 00:37:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24DbSo18795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:37:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (st.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24DbIH18772 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:37:19 +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 OAA09827; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:24:39 +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 OAA22176; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:27:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020304143033.00a46ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:31:34 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. In-Reply-To: <001c01c1c33a$e8c923a0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <2df58u8mq1i1amm7opkl215gtb2ot8fdk1@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:03 3/03/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Better yet, when a play didn't work out well (e.g., singleton lead, >finesse for a queen), arrange the cards to look like it did! Singleton >first, trump next, things like that. AG : what about L73D2, intentionally misleading an opponent ? (the player in your seat is more of an opponent as the guys in the other direction, after 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 00:43:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24DhXx19966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:43:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24DhOH19937 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:43:24 +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 OAA08605; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:32:38 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA29520; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:33:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020304143456.00a3cb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:37:40 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: <00de01c1c375$9c583160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 13:10 4/03/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > Yes. The principle of full disclosure is embodied in L75A. > > > >Another frequently occurring example with strong club systems is the 1D >opening bid, usually alerted and explained that it does not promise more >than two diamonds. > >This is a very incomplete description, the correct description should be: >Either natural (4+), or NT distribution without the strength for 1NT (nor >1C). AG : not in my book ! 1D is the normal opening in traditional Precision on 4135, 1435, 4225 and 2425 with so-so clubs. The good description would then be "2+ cards, denies 5M or 6C". >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 Mar 5 00:47:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24DlC420675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:47:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24Dl4H20653 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:47:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16hseN-0000B2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:37:12 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020304082559.00aa7770@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 08:38:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:43 PM 3/3/02, Todd wrote: > Overheard at a recent regional: "Only positive inferences have to > be disclosed; your opponents have to deduce the negative inferences > for themselves." Personally, it boiled my blood, but I'd rather have > a second opinion. Patent nonsense. "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents." I see nothing in those words that distinguishes between "positive" and "negative" inferences, nor am I even sure the distinction is meaningful. >If I asked you or your partner about a 2H opening, would you be >obligated to immediately and freely explain that it promises a 4 card >minor? It does, I know it, and you cannot be expected to know it from your "general knowledge and experience". Hence there is no legal case for my failing to disclose it, nor would there be any ethical case for my failing to do so even if I could find an abstruse legal argument by which it wouldn't be required. But, to return to Marv's original point, that doesn't make it a convention. 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 Mar 5 00:53:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24DrcU21904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:53:38 +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 (www.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24DrSH21879 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:53:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id OAA10814; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:42:43 +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 OAA11246; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:43:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020304144012.00a45d90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:47:44 +0100 To: Petrus Schuster OSB , BLML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? 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 g24DrVH21889 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:12 3/03/2002 +0100, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >The following hand came up yesterday [at 1:45 am :( ]: AG : I took some time to wonder what that new smilie :( ]: meant. Hippopotamus ? Ah, a bracket ! How dull ! -<%-P >Bd 8 - W - none > > KT752 > 93 > T5 > 9532 > > 83 AQ4 > QJT8752 4 > 32 AQ9874 > J6 KT4 > > J96 > AK6 > KJ6 > AQ87 > > W N E S > 2D(1) P 2H(2) x (1) weak two in a major, > P 2S 2NT x or 22-23 balanced, or > 3H P P x AP 8-11 with 5-5 in minors > (2) pass or correct > >(both 2D and 2H were alerted; there was no agreement about >2NT) >N complained immediately after the explanation that the >minor two-suiter made W´s opening an illegal convention. I >directed the players to continue and told them I would award >an adjusted score if the possibility of the minor two-suiter >caused damage. AG : okay. >Under Austrian regulations the two-suiter would be OK if it >promised 10 or more HCPs (and not 13 as in the WBF >regulations). >N called m back to the table after W had made 9 tricks. I >asked him in what way he felt damaged by the possibility of >the two-suiter, and he told me that had he known for sure >that W held a H weak two, he would have been able to bid 3H >over 2H, showing spades and an minor, so that it would have >been impossible for W to do so. AG : with *that* ? I don't believe him. Let him show his defense to Multi, where it is written that the bid shows such a hand ... >I found this not quite convincing as IMO he had this >information when W passed the double of 2H. AG : yes indeed. >No damage - no >indemnity under L12: >So I decided to let the score stand, with a PP to EW for >using a (slightly) illegal convention. >Now, I wonder if this was correct? AG : it was, provided South's bidding wasn't affected. I can't see how North's could be. Provided, too, that East's 2NT was intended as natural (and it seems it was). But one thing strikes me : West's choice of openings. If a fair 7-carder might be included in a Multi, there should be some mention of that. If only after west takes 2NT out. >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 Mar 5 01:30:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24EThY27776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 01:29:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.zeelandnet.nl (mail.zeelandnet.nl [212.115.192.194]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24ETYH27753 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 01:29:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from highscreen (kbl-vlis5216.zeelandnet.nl [212.92.84.136]) by mail.zeelandnet.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id CC51B56BB8; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:19:35 +0100 (CET) From: "Marcel Schoof" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: RE: [BLML] Appeals Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:19:35 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <8V7l3HBrX2R8EwH6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >In the "Appeals" file from Tobiano I read a sentence >that I found quite surprising: > >+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >Players should not discuss the decision with Committee >members afterwards. They can appeal to the National Authority. >+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > >Why shouldn't they? I very often discuss with the TDs >after the tournament. The more complex and interesting >the case and the better the TD the more I want >to discuss. Either I can learn something or, if I >think the ruling was incorrect, I can try to persuade >the Director that he erred. Or I can be persuaded >myself. I also often disucss the rulings with the AC members >afterwards. Can anybody tell me why this is wrong? The majority of people who "discuss" matters with an AC afterwards are trying to indicate that they would be prepared to pay for marriage licences for the members' parents. I do not think there is any real problem if you really mean to discuss, not just to disagree. Note that the above comment refers to the alternative of appealing to the National Authority which I think gives the flavour of the discussion to which they refer. MMS: I agree that a discussion bases on the AC ruling is possible but that most players don't discuss what's been decided but discuss that the dicision was wrong because the members haven't read the appealent comment. This often ending in the statement that the AC did something terribly wrong. In cases where the appelent himself is a TD there can be a more (theoretical) discussion about the case. I don't see anything wrong in that (except that this situation doesn't fit with the rules). Marcel -- 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 Tue Mar 5 02:19:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24FJFV05848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 02:19:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.minfod.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24FJ1H05792 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 02:19:07 +1100 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:12:30 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21C7@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'BLML '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Sorting at the end of the hand Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 10:12:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At our club we have recently begun requesting that people sort their cards before putting them back in the board. The reason was that there are several people in the club with severe arthritis and the pre-sort is a big help to them. It also seems to speed up the game a bit. John Nichols -----Original Message----- From: Marvin L. French To: BLML Sent: 3/3/02 9:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorting at the end of the hand ... snip Maybe my suggestion would be better for senior games, in which hand-sorting before play often shows too much to an opponent, and a pre-sorted hand would be welcomed by many. ... snip Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 02:32:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24FW6n08411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 02:32:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24FVvH08379 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 02:31:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16huHp-0009T1-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:22:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 12:37:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? References: <3c835250.aa9.0@esatclear.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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Karel wrote: > > >> >The following hand came up yesterday [at 1:45 am :( ]: >> > >> >Bd 8 - W - none > >2D bid BSC/HUM according to the definitions for this event. > > >> I have no idea what the ruling is but I would expect the NOS to be at >> least 60%+. > >I'd simply go for table result or A+/A-, whichever is better for the NOS, >plus a PP for the OS. The OS gets 2 minutes to adjust their CC, if they >can't do this, they'll have to play WBF-standard (or something similar) >for the remainder of the session. Table result or A+/A- is as per English regs. PP only if there is some extra problem [eg the pair often do this]. What seems unfair is trying to get the NOs to explain why they are damaged by an illegal bid. It could be nothing ore than a minor mis- judgement, but it is one diffciult to explain. For example, when deciding whether to bid 2N or 3N in a sequence, it would have been different if a 2D opening had included different options. The opposition have no reason to have to defend against an illegal bid, and I suggest that Table result or A+/A- is fairest [plus a PP or not to your taste]. I do think a reg should be in place for illegal calls. >It is up to the OS to verify that their system is allowed in this event >and, when in doubt, check with the TD. I don't think that it is reasonable >to expect that the NOS has prepared a defence against a convention that >cannot come up in this tournament, nor do I want to guess what the NOS >would have done had they discussed the situation in advance. Exactly. -- 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 Mar 5 03:03:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24G3L714094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:03:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24G3AH14078 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:03:11 +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 QAA13827; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:50:29 +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 QAA11315; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:53:13 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020304165132.00a7a170@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 16:57:23 +0100 To: John Nichols , "'BLML '" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Sorting at the end of the hand In-Reply-To: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21C7@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 10:12 4/03/2002 -0500, John Nichols wrote: >Maybe my suggestion would be better for senior games, in which >hand-sorting before play often shows too much to an opponent, AG : did you ever realize that one gesture during the sorting may convey your entire pattern to your partner (unless you've got a diamond void) ? Sort yuor suits as S-D-H-C. Then (that's the gesture) pull out your diamonds and put them where they belong. - the spades are the cards left of the pulled pack (of which there might be none) - the hearts are the cards between the initial and the final position of the pulled pack - the diamonds are the pulled pack - the clubs are the cards right of the end position of the pulled pack (of which there might be none) - if you replace the pack at the same place, you're obviously void in hearts Oops, I've blown the gaff ;-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 03:32:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24GWIf18781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:32:18 +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 g24GWAH18766 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:32:10 +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 LAA00598 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:22:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA09215 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:22:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:22:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203041622.LAA09215@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > There's a particular danger that committees, a step removed from the > facts and not in the heat of battle, can get hung up on our beloved > theoretical issues. They may sometimes find one way on a point of > theory, even a closely conested one, when the facts on the ground > clearly point the other way, and commit notable miscarriages of > justice, as in "oh s--t". Let's remember that the Vancouver ruling was given initially by the TD. See ftp://209.45.144.70/nabc/1999spr-vancouver/vantxt08.txt The AC's failure to overturn the TD ruling was, of course, an egregious blunder, but the AC was given very bad advice on the law, again by a TD. (We have had an explanation on BLML, which I won't repeat, but the TD's reasons for not being at his best are understandable.) I won't disagree that AC's sometimes go wrong, but I don't think the Vancouver case can be cited as evidence for the superiority of TD rulings. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 03:53:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24GquY21967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:52:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24GqmH21952 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 03:52:48 +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 LAA01931 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:42:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA09237 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:42:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:42:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203041642.LAA09237@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Table result or A+/A- is as per English regs. PP only if there is > some extra problem [eg the pair often do this]. I'm curious... the bid is only illegal because of a 2-point range discrepancy on the 5-5 minors. The agreement was 8-11, but if it had been 10-11, the 2D convention would have been completely legal. What about ruling that the opponents should assume that the true agreement is the legal one, and adjust the score only if the actual holding is the one making the convention illegal (8-9, both minors)? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 05:22:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24IIoI02627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 05:18:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24IIdH02606 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 05:18:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d360.iae.nl [212.61.5.106]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 161BC20F8D for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:08:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00f501c1c3a7$745d2260$6a053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <001301c1c13e$7c47d4e0$d88d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 18:32:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 1:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? > Peter Gill writes > > >It may not be interesting to some BLML readers, but some of us > >are intrigued that one of the basic tenets of bridge ("that a bid must > >supersede the previous bid") is not in the Laws, although it used to be > >in the Laws. Could there be some reason that this is omitted from the > >Laws? > > One suggestion that I have seen in the past, and personally support, > is that the Laws would be easier to understand if the first group of > Laws told everyone how to play the game, and then later Laws tell > everyone what to do when the first group of Laws is not followed. > >BS A second suggestion is to bring the Laws of the Proprieties to the beginning of the FLB. So is done in the Lawsbook of the golfsport. Besides that you have to undergo an examination before you are admitted to play! Ben > 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 Tue Mar 5 05:49:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24Impl06876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 05:48:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24ImfH06848 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 05:48:41 +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 16hxM6-0007t6-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:38:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:35:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 >> >I agree. But if I turned up to a Swiss pairs with six or more boards/ >> >round I would feel extremely surprised to be sitting out. I would expect >> >the organisers to have a stand-by pair (or co-opt passersby from the >> >streets) rather than allow it to happen. Alternatively the CoC might >> >allow for triangles with each pair sitting out 2 boards. >> >> Most EBU Swiss Pairs nowadays expect players to sit out eight boards >> rather than have a stand-by pair. In the North-West we have stand-by >> pairs. >> >> While I have considered triangles in Swiss Pairs currently the >> software would not allow it. > >By definition a Round is a part of a session played without progression >of players. According to this definition exchanging at least one pair at a >table with another pair makes it a new round. > >In a pairs tournament with an odd number of participating pairs there is >no way you can avoid "sit-out" or "walk-over" for one pair in each round. > >This is not a matter of software, it is a matter of mathematics. (It is >impossible to split a collection of an odd number of elements into >subgroups each containing exactly two elements). It is not a matter of mathematics, it is a matter of software. It would be perfectly possible to run a Swiss Pairs with three pairs playing some sort of rotation at one table but the software does not allow it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 06:27:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24JRRS14267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:27:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24JRIH14241 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 06:27:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP18.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.18]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA07835 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:17:23 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Cards misplaced by dummy Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 14:17:52 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, When spreading his cards, dummy put H2 in the Diamond row so that dummy seems to have only 2 small cards in H. After a H opening lead by West, the declarer in South, playing 4S, played HA and HK and a third small H. W ruff with SQ, dummy overruff with SK... and then East called the TD: "look at this H2...". Ruling: North, as dummy, had first made an infraction according to Law 41D ("sorted into suits"). Dummy has to play H2 at the current trick. West can put his DS in hand without penalty and play any legal card (he may discard). (47 D ?? ) East takes the current trick with HQ. DS in W's hand is UI to declarer. This ruling seems correct according to "equity". Not so clear according to Laws. Law 47D reads "After an opponent's change of play". Does this apply to cards played before the infraction or only after? Please comment. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 07:13:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24KDDm22821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:13:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24KD4H22795 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:13:05 +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 g24K38u17709 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:03:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 22:23:22 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020304150300-r01010800-d1b3d973-0904-0109@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 3/4/02 at 1:18 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > For example, in the Precision-style system I play, auctions > often proceed 1S opening bid from me, and then a response of Pass > from pard. Even if ABF members were expected to understand that > Pass could have good values, since my 1S is limited, I still Alert > the Pass anyway because of its _unusual_ negative inference. It has occurred to me, reading the new ACBL Alert Regs, that since there's no way I can know (I just don't have the experience) whether any particular call is "unusual or unexpected" to my opponents, and since the Regs require such calls to be alerted, and since the ACBL has stated (in the Bulletin, if not elsewhere) that there can be no penalty for alerting if it turns out that an alert is not required, that perhaps I (and for that matter any novice player) ought to alert *every* call. That oughta be fun. :-) 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 Mar 5 09:12:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24MBgV15841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:11:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24MBWH15800 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:11:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1048.bb.online.no [80.212.212.24]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA12973 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:01:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:01:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > >By definition a Round is a part of a session played without progression > >of players. According to this definition exchanging at least one pair at a > >table with another pair makes it a new round. > > > >In a pairs tournament with an odd number of participating pairs there is > >no way you can avoid "sit-out" or "walk-over" for one pair in each round. > > > >This is not a matter of software, it is a matter of mathematics. (It is > >impossible to split a collection of an odd number of elements into > >subgroups each containing exactly two elements). > > It is not a matter of mathematics, it is a matter of software. It > would be perfectly possible to run a Swiss Pairs with three pairs > playing some sort of rotation at one table but the software does not > allow it. Anything you can specify can be programmed, but you cannot specify how three pairs can play "some sort of rotation" at one table without one of the three (in rotation - OK) having to "sit over" those boards that are played by the two other pairs. I have now 38 years experience in the computing area, the last 30 as a recognized expert, and the one "excuse" that annoys me most is when someone blames the computer as being the reason for something he or she cannot do. There is a very descriptive word for such arguments in the English (or rather American) language: Bullshit. 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 Mar 5 09:35:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24MZd418521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:35:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto1.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.130]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24MZUH18495 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:35:31 +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 Mar 2002 16:25:37 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:43:05 -0600 To: Grattan Endicott , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2002 22:25:37.0097 (UTC) FILETIME=[82105390:01C1C3CB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"In this way some of the characteristics of the >father are more near to him, others more remote >from him considered simply as a parent and not >in reference to his accidental qualities (as for >instance if the parent is a scholar or the >neighbour of some particular person)." > 'Generation of Animals', Aristotle. >~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Nancy Dressing" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 9:28 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled > > >> I don't think any law has been violated by passing >> with an eleven point hand. Isn't one allowed to >> deviate from partnership understandings as long >> as partner is fooled as are the opponents? >> Nancy >> > >+=+ Surely I must be dense this morning. Certainly >I think there are questions to ask (as Colonel Schoder >says) before jumping to conclusions and decisions. > The lady passed because she received the hand >sorted? What inference did she draw from this? Since >she admits that was her reason for passing, and since >I do not believe the order of the cards in the hand >when it is received is AI on which to base an action, >there are grounds* in my view for disallowing the result >on the board. But other than that, does anyone >suggest a basis in law for intervention by the Director? > If the 1NT opener (15-17) proves to be psychic we >have the good old-fashioned 'red' psyche situation - >Law of Coincidence and all that. (1NT = 12-14 to pass >is a matter of judgement, the hand sounds thin). And if >the opener is genuine, the pass gets a good result, >the mere fact of passing is no basis on which to adjust >the score. So more info., questions and answers, >please. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >* note:'accidentally receives' - to apply Law 16B here >we must interpret 'accidental' according to the >teachings of Aristotle = "not essential to the nature >of (the hand)" .as indeed the sequence of the cards >in it is not. [ :-) but foreseeing a challenge since I >reread the Law before I wrote] > Well, one should always make a fuller explanation of one's stupid remarks. 1. This all came out of the ACBL, so we can pretty well assume 1NT was supposed to be 15-17 or so, not weaker, and normal action in the absence of other information would be getting to game somewhere, either 3NT or 4 of a major. 2. I have lots experience of games at this level with this sort of player (and lots lots of it-it's where I'll be in 3 hours playing with a partner who would probably think and maybe act just like the 11 HCP passer and have no idea that she would doing anything wrong by acting on the notion that there was something unusual about the 11 HCP hand.) Sorted hands almost always come from the previous table after some discussion of the interesting results on that hand. When the hand seems to belong to the side holding the sorted hand it's likely game does not make, or, perhaps, some slam can be made easily. If the hand is sorted, it was discussed at the previous table. 3. There's nothing better for the prosecution than a confession, and here it was not even beaten out of the acused. She said so freely (but no Miranda warning.) DWS often says the things to ask always are what happened and why. Or words to that effect. 4. Given the kind of game, I would not propose to penalize the passer, but I would make it a point to explain Unauthorized Information to the person who passed because the hand was sorted. But acting on the fact that the hand was sorted is certainly acting on Accidental Unauthorized Information. On the other hand, maybe I should start asking for average plus on every hand that I get that is sorted, on the theory I have received Unauthorized Information. (Fat chance of that getting anywhere!) (Or else sort a few myself???) Well, enough foolishness for today and the next month or so. No can make it to Houston, class interferes. (Run over by the semi in semiretired.) (But far better than being squashed between two semis on I-70 in the snow and ice, as were a few people on Saturday.) 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 Tue Mar 5 09:43:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24Mgo919789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:42:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24MgeH19763 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:42:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1608.bb.online.no [80.212.214.72]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA04317 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:32:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001701c1c3cc$7fb81640$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Cards misplaced by dummy Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:32:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Laval Dubreuil" > Hi BLMLrs, > > When spreading his cards, dummy put H2 in the Diamond row > so that dummy seems to have only 2 small cards in H. > > After a H opening lead by West, the declarer in South, > playing 4S, played HA and HK and a third small H. W ruff > with SQ, dummy overruff with SK... and then East called > the TD: "look at this H2...". > > Ruling: North, as dummy, had first made an infraction > according to Law 41D ("sorted into suits"). > Dummy has to play H2 at the current trick. > West can put his DS in hand without penalty and play > any legal card (he may discard). (47 D ?? ) > East takes the current trick with HQ. > DS in W's hand is UI to declarer. > > This ruling seems correct according to "equity". > Not so clear according to Laws. > Law 47D reads "After an opponent's change of play". > Does this apply to cards played before the infraction > or only after? > Please comment. IMO this is an interesting situation because the text in Law47D can be read in two ways: One way is that after the offender have changed his card, opponents may change the cards _they_ have played to the trick regardless of whether they made their play before or after the offender played his original card, but then TD should require some logical connection between the original offence and their selection of the card to play. Such a law would be very tricky to manage and use, but if this should be the correct interpretation then the ruling had been OK. However, on going back in the commentaries to the 1987 laws (by Grattan Endicott) I find on Law47D (which has not been changed from the 1987 laws): "Where the Laws permit a player to withdraw his played card and substitute another, Law 47 authorizes his opponent to change any card he may have played to the trick in rotation after the original card was played". According to this West should not have been permitted to withdraw his SQ. One argument supporting such a ruling is that West only have himself to blame for not noticing the H2 apparently clearly visible although misplaced by dummy. TD could have used Law 12A1 to provide equity. 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 Mar 5 09:56:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24MuaR21902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:56:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24MuRH21873 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:56:28 +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 RAA27170 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:46:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA09556 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:46:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:46:34 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203042246.RAA09556@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Cards misplaced by dummy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Ruling: North, as dummy, had first made an infraction > > according to Law 41D ("sorted into suits"). > From: "Sven Pran" > One way is that after the offender have changed his card, > opponents may change the cards _they_ have played to > the trick regardless of whether they made their play > before or after the offender played his original card, but > then TD should require some logical connection between > the original offence and their selection of the card to play. I thought this was a "creative" interpretation, although useful in the current instance. At least it fits my personal idea of equity. > However, on going back in the commentaries to the 1987 > laws (by Grattan Endicott) I find on Law47D (which has > not been changed from the 1987 laws): > > "Where the Laws permit a player to withdraw his played > card and substitute another, Law 47 authorizes his > opponent to change any card he may have played to the > trick in rotation after the original card was played". > According to this West should not have been permitted to > withdraw his SQ. I'm afraid this is what I would have ruled. > TD could have used Law 12A1 to provide equity. Yes, if the S-Q damages the NOS (as it probably will), the TD will have to adjust the score afterwards. In view of that, the creative interpretation might be more fun for the players. Can this be justified at a 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 Tue Mar 5 10:15:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24NEZJ25321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:14:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g24NEOH25292 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:14:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1996.bb.online.no [80.212.215.204]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA14183 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:04:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002801c1c3d0$ee3a5a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203042246.RAA09556@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cards misplaced by dummy Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:04:25 +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 > > One way is that after the offender have changed his card, > > opponents may change the cards _they_ have played to > > the trick regardless of whether they made their play > > before or after the offender played his original card, but > > then TD should require some logical connection between > > the original offence and their selection of the card to play. > > I thought this was a "creative" interpretation, although useful > in the current instance. At least it fits my personal idea of > equity. > > > However, on going back in the commentaries to the 1987 > > laws (by Grattan Endicott) I find on Law47D (which has > > not been changed from the 1987 laws): > > > > "Where the Laws permit a player to withdraw his played > > card and substitute another, Law 47 authorizes his > > opponent to change any card he may have played to the > > trick in rotation after the original card was played". > > > According to this West should not have been permitted to > > withdraw his SQ. > > I'm afraid this is what I would have ruled. > > > TD could have used Law 12A1 to provide equity. > > Yes, if the S-Q damages the NOS (as it probably will), the TD will have > to adjust the score afterwards. In view of that, the creative > interpretation might be more fun for the players. Can this be > justified at a club game? My personal goal when directing is to behave so that after the event everybody feel happy, treated fair, and looking forward to my next event. In view of that I would say: Yes - this might be justified at a club game (and incidently IMO also as a means to assess the adjustment justified under Law 12A1 at almost any level!) 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 Mar 5 10:16:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g24NGO125611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:16:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f39.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g24NGFH25579 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:16:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:06:17 -0800 Received: from 172.146.79.174 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 04 Mar 2002 23:06:16 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.146.79.174] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 15:06:16 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2002 23:06:17.0206 (UTC) FILETIME=[307B6960:01C1C3D1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Sven Pran" >Anything you can specify can be programmed, but you cannot specify >how three pairs can play "some sort of rotation" at one table without >one of the three (in rotation - OK) having to "sit over" those boards that >are played by the two other pairs. With 21 pairs and 10 rounds, all but one pair could have a 1/2 round sitout rather than having 10 pairs with a full round sitout. I think this is what DWS is aiming at, but I might be wrong. Either way, I would consider this a more desireable movement. >I have now 38 years experience in the computing area, the last 30 as a >recognized expert, and the one "excuse" that annoys me most is when >someone blames the computer as being the reason for something he >or she cannot do. There is a very descriptive word for such arguments in >the English (or rather American) language: Bullshit. It wouldn't surprize me if the software does not currently support that styled movement and I don't blame anyone for sticking with what the computer does know how to do instead of reverting to handscoring. I guess that if does support it you'd have to set up a 20 round movement, with all but 3 pairs remaining stationary every other round. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ 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 Tue Mar 5 11:49:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g250mw705485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 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 g250moH05481 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:48:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g250cvJ23872 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:38:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <005d01c1c3de$20f88b00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000701c1c231$21954020$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> <000b01c1c2a7$d40f8b40$7a54e150@dodona> <001501c1c2e7$95c16d00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <009001c1c306$b8cdce00$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <2df58u8mq1i1amm7opkl215gtb2ot8fdk1@4ax.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020304143033.00a46ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Troubled : but remember your Aristotle. Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:29:10 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > , Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Better yet, when a play didn't work out well (e.g., singleton lead, > >finesse for a queen), arrange the cards to look like it did! Singleton > >first, trump next, things like that. > > AG : what about L73D2, intentionally misleading an opponent ? (the player > in your seat is more of an opponent as the guys in the other direction, > after all) This reminds of the lady who had noticed her LHO trying to see her hand in the past. When he trustfully played her partner for a queen, not seeing it in her hand, she picked up her purse, opened it, and took out the queen. Playing against someone of the type who watches where cards are pulled from, I put xx of his trumps on the left end of my hand and the queen somewhere in the middle. Somehow these things seem okay, despite L73D2. 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 Mar 5 12:30:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g251U6A07224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:30:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g251TsH07186 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:29:54 +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 16i3cO-000HJa-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 01:19:59 +0000 Message-ID: <$PNFRiB2d8g8EwvC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:13:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? References: <200203041642.LAA09237@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200203041642.LAA09237@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 >> Table result or A+/A- is as per English regs. PP only if there is >> some extra problem [eg the pair often do this]. > >I'm curious... the bid is only illegal because of a 2-point range >discrepancy on the 5-5 minors. The agreement was 8-11, but if it had >been 10-11, the 2D convention would have been completely legal. > >What about ruling that the opponents should assume that the true >agreement is the legal one, and adjust the score only if the actual >holding is the one making the convention illegal (8-9, both minors)? As I have just tried to explain, I consider this unfair. Apart from the fact that a pair who plays an illegal system often gets away with it against ignorant opponents [judge by the pair who bid an illegal bid against myself and Jeremy Dhondy, and when the TD [from BLML] asked them told him it must be legal because they had been playing it for five years!] there can be just a small difference in judgement based on a change of point range. When people do not follow the rules why do we not just screw them? Why must we bend over backwards to support the offenders? -- 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 Mar 5 12:30:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g251UAq07232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:30:10 +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 g251TrH07185 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:29:54 +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 16i3cO-000HJZ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 01:19:59 +0000 Message-ID: <2vfH5WB8Z8g8Ews6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:09:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions References: <200203041622.LAA09215@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200203041622.LAA09215@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: Eric Landau >> There's a particular danger that committees, a step removed from the >> facts and not in the heat of battle, can get hung up on our beloved >> theoretical issues. They may sometimes find one way on a point of >> theory, even a closely conested one, when the facts on the ground >> clearly point the other way, and commit notable miscarriages of >> justice, as in "oh s--t". > >Let's remember that the Vancouver ruling was given initially >by the TD. See >ftp://209.45.144.70/nabc/1999spr-vancouver/vantxt08.txt Having now had dinner with the TD who gave the ruling, the facts sounded completely different when he explained them to me. >The AC's failure to overturn the TD ruling was, of course, an egregious >blunder, but the AC was given very bad advice on the law, again by a >TD. (We have had an explanation on BLML, which I won't repeat, but the >TD's reasons for not being at his best are understandable.) > >I won't disagree that AC's sometimes go wrong, but I don't think the >Vancouver case can be cited as evidence for the superiority of TD >rulings. -- 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 Mar 5 12:44:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g251iem09766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:44:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g251iWH09740 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:44:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA04528 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:46:43 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 12:32:57 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:44:01 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/03/2002 12:33:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: [snip] >With 21 pairs and 10 rounds, all but one pair could have a 1/2 round >sitout rather than having 10 pairs with a full round sitout. I >think this is what DWS is aiming at, but I might be wrong. Either >way, I would consider this a more desireable movement. [snip] FYI, the latest issue of the Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin has published a 7.5 table movement with 1/2 round sitouts. To join the Australian Bridge Directors Association (which includes quarterly receipt of the Bulletin), email the ABDA Treasurer, John Hempenstall, at: johnhemp@pcug.org.au Any article submissions to the Bulletin should be sent to the Editor, Laurie Kelso, at: lkelso@ihug.com.au (In the spirit of full disclosure of negative inferences, I display the dummy-play I recently made - volunteering to serve as ABDA Secretary.) :-) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 13:42:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g252g6a19042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:42:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g252fsH19022 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:41:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16i4kB-000P6I-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 02:32:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 02:29:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] blml in Houston References: <20020302200133.3c812f9d39d04@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: 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 g252fvH19026 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes > Houston NABC >   > To date not much interest has been expressed in getting together at > the Houston NABC.  But we shall not be deterred.  Unless there is a > suggestion otherwise here are the arrangements. >   > BLML gathers at Zucchini's Resturant at 7:30 am Sunday March 10, > 2002.   For an hour or whatever. >   > Zucchini's Resturant is located on the Second Level [highest floor > of the Mall] two floors above a skating rink [at the Northeast > corner]. >   > I am now sending DWS a floor plan of the Second Level so he can > post it on his Webpage.  > It is  named ZucchinisGalleriaSecondLevel.gif.  > I am also sending him Zucchini's menu as a text file Zucchini's > Menu.txt >   > See you weary traveler's in Houston. See the BLML Logos and other items page at http://blakjak.com/blml_log.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 Tue Mar 5 13:42:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g252g1719034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:42:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g252foH19003 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:41:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16i4k6-000P6I-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 02:31:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 01:43:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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" >> >By definition a Round is a part of a session played without progression >> >of players. According to this definition exchanging at least one pair at >a >> >table with another pair makes it a new round. >> > >> >In a pairs tournament with an odd number of participating pairs there is >> >no way you can avoid "sit-out" or "walk-over" for one pair in each round. >> > >> >This is not a matter of software, it is a matter of mathematics. (It is >> >impossible to split a collection of an odd number of elements into >> >subgroups each containing exactly two elements). >> >> It is not a matter of mathematics, it is a matter of software. It >> would be perfectly possible to run a Swiss Pairs with three pairs >> playing some sort of rotation at one table but the software does not >> allow it. > >Anything you can specify can be programmed, but you cannot specify >how three pairs can play "some sort of rotation" at one table without >one of the three (in rotation - OK) having to "sit over" those boards that >are played by the two other pairs. It *is* a matter of software. Of course it *can* be programmed, but until someone does we have to use the software that is available, and the software that is available does not allow a threesome. >I have now 38 years experience in the computing area, the last 30 as a >recognized expert, and the one "excuse" that annoys me most is when >someone blames the computer as being the reason for something he >or she cannot do. There is a very descriptive word for such arguments in >the English (or rather American) language: Bullshit. Which is, of course, what you are talking. I do not have the competence to re-write the software that I am using, so until someone does so for me I am constrained by the software available. As to the mathematics, it is very easy to arrange a triangle. The simplest one is for two pairs to both sit E/W and play four boards each against the remaining pair who sits N/S. But the software does not allow it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 15:58:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g254w6v09304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:58:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g254vtH09269 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:57:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g254m0u00701 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:48:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:27:13 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00de01c1c375$9c583160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020304234802-r01010800-7c5e2e6e-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 3/4/02 at 1:10 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > Another frequently occurring example with strong club systems is the 1D > opening bid, usually alerted and explained that it does not promise more > than two diamonds. > > This is a very incomplete description, the correct description should be: > Either natural (4+), or NT distribution without the strength for 1NT (nor > 1C). I don't know if that would be a correct description of the 1D bid I play with my Monday night partner or not. I do know that the new ACBL Alert regs require an announcment ("could be short"), not an alert. If asked, we describe it as "11-16 HCP, 2+ diamonds, possibly longer clubs, no 5 card major unless diamonds are longer." Balanced 16 pointers are opened 1NT. I suppose we're remiss in not mentioning 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 Tue Mar 5 15:58:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g254w5u09301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:58:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g254vqH09258 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:57:53 +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 g254lwu00672 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:47:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 23:42:00 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020304234759-r01010800-743077f5-0904-0109@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 3/5/02 at 1:43 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > It *is* a matter of software. Of course it *can* be programmed, but > until someone does we have to use the software that is available, and > the software that is available does not allow a threesome. Why? Is manual scoring no longer permitted? 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 Mar 5 17:00:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g255x1S20056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:59:02 +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 g255wqH20029 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:58:53 +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 4DAF72J5; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:48:54 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020305004037.02680040@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 00:48:42 -0500 To: From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: <00de01c1c375$9c583160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 01:10 PM 3/4/02 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >Another frequently occurring example with strong club systems is the 1D >opening bid, usually alerted and explained that it does not promise more >than two diamonds. > >This is a very incomplete description, the correct description should be: >Either natural (4+), or NT distribution without the strength for 1NT (nor >1C). > >Sven Good description, Sven. I always disclose to the best of my ability but had not come up with an explanation for the 1D opening that was as accurate and concise as yours. Thank you, Walt Flory -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 18:05:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2574H729309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:04:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g25749H29285 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:04:09 +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 SAA18090 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:06:18 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:52:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:47:48 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/03/2002 05:52:49 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2574AH29288 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kojak wrote: [snip] >If Laws did not need interpretation, explanation, and definition in their >usage we would not have need for Laws Committees/Commissions, lawyers, >courts, appeals committees provided for in the Laws, and  TDs to interpret >the bridge Laws (see Law 81C5).  In fact we wouldn't even have BLML, would >we? [snip] IMHO, the most effective legislator is one whom abolishes their own job. Suppose input from BLML to the WBF Laws Commission results in an unambiguous new edition of the Laws. Then BLML will have simultaneously justified its existence, and terminated its need to continue to exist. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 19:04:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2583x308937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:03:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g2583oH08919 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 19:03:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.86.104] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16i9lf-000GqT-00; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 07:53:52 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c1c41b$59182440$6856e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <001301c1c13e$7c47d4e0$d88d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 07:56:23 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 12:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Which Law Prevents Deliberate Insufficient Bids? > > One suggestion that I have seen in the past, and personally > support, is that the Laws would be easier to understand if > the first group of Laws told everyone how to play the game, > and then later Laws tell everyone what to do when the first > group of Laws is not followed. > +=+ One suggestion I have in my folder for the General Review is the re-ordering of the sequence of the laws. However, I think this is something to be put and discussed near the end of the exercise, after we have agreed what content to recommend. The suggestion is my own and the order I would propose would put the 'administration' laws first, then how to play the game, finally how to deal with irregularities and infractions. One thought I have in mind is to group the 'how to deal with' laws at the end so that the Director has easy access to them through the back door of the book. I think it would be unhelpful to the drafting procedure to confuse issues by introducing housekeeping themes before we get to grips with changes of effect. I have a slight anxiety that some of my colleagues will find such a suggestion 'radical' after we have lived with the present rather muddled sequence for so long and the discussion could lead us away from the core issues to do with the contents of the laws.~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 5 20:30:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g259U9f21417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 20:30:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g259TxH21386 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 20:30:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3486.bb.online.no [80.212.221.158]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA05536; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:19:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 10:19:30 +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 > As to the mathematics, it is very easy to arrange a triangle. The > simplest one is for two pairs to both sit E/W and play four boards each > against the remaining pair who sits N/S. But the software does not > allow it. And between them, for each board one pair has a "sit-out" (not the same pair all the time of course), exactly as I have said. That cannot be avoided. Software doen't allow it? Well, the standard programs we use in Norway allows that, just set up the event in the program with "rounds" according to the definition in the law and let the seating for the "normal" tables be the same for two and two consecutive "rounds". (If you have a tournament with eight boards in each "round" you simply tell the program that each round consists of four boards). No problem, and no advantage over running a simple movement with plain sit-overs and the same number of boards for all the tables in each round. Come on, I don't believe it if I shall have to explain this for experienced directors? 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 Mar 5 21:15:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25AFYg28475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:15:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net ([199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g25AFPH28454 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:15:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-adsl-199-224-119-139.epix.net [199.224.119.139]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2001112001/PL) with SMTP id g25A5SET023211 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 05:05:29 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 05:05:34 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <8d598uke2qcp4pd0auo7npuv3la3blstv8@4ax.com> References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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, 4 Mar 2002 23:01:27 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > >I have now 38 years experience in the computing area, the last 30 as a >recognized expert, and the one "excuse" that annoys me most is when >someone blames the computer as being the reason for something he >or she cannot do. There is a very descriptive word for such arguments in >the English (or rather American) language: Bullshit. > Well, I can't claim 38 years, since my kindergarten didn't teach programming. However, even with my later start in computers, I have long since come to realise that "when a user blames the computer as being the reason for something he or she cannot do", this usually means that the program they are using was not written to provide that facility, or possibly was written to specifically disallow that facility. Sven, after 38 years in the computer industry, you really should have learned to understand user-speak by now.... 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 Mar 5 21:33:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25AWno01434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:32:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g25AWdH01418 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 21:32:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-4018.bb.online.no [80.212.223.178]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA26624; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:22:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002f01c1c42f$9b4b60c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <8d598uke2qcp4pd0auo7npuv3la3blstv8@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:22:08 +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: "Brian Meadows" > Sven, after 38 years in the computer industry, you really should > have learned to understand user-speak by now.... I believe I do, and the one thing I always try to make my clients understand is that the computer is a tool, not a God. Enough of this, let's get back to Bridge shall we? (And not "hide" behind computers) 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 Mar 5 23:01:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25C0S717564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:00:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g25C0JH17534 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:00:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-14-218.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.14.218] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by tungsten.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16iDSZ-000547-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 11:50:24 +0000 Message-ID: <3C84B0FE.8E990A72@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 11:50:24 +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@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020304143456.00a3cb30@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 13:10 4/03/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > Yes. The principle of full disclosure is embodied in L75A. > > > > > > >Another frequently occurring example with strong club systems is the 1D > >opening bid, usually alerted and explained that it does not promise more > >than two diamonds. > > > >This is a very incomplete description, the correct description should be: > >Either natural (4+), or NT distribution without the strength for 1NT (nor > >1C). This still sounds incomplete. The possibility of longer clubs seems worth mentioning. > > > AG : not in my book ! 1D is the normal opening in traditional Precision on > 4135, 1435, 4225 and 2425 with so-so clubs. The good description would then > be "2+ cards, denies 5M or 6C". You never open 1D with 6D+5M, nor with 5D+6C? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Rainsford London UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 01:08:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25E7Iq10197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:07:18 +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-35.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g25E79H10177 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:07:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-35.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iFRD-0006Y4-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 13:57:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 02:43:57 +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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >[snip] > >>With 21 pairs and 10 rounds, all but one pair could have a 1/2 round >>sitout rather than having 10 pairs with a full round sitout. I >>think this is what DWS is aiming at, but I might be wrong. Either >>way, I would consider this a more desireable movement. > >[snip] > >FYI, the latest issue of the Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin has >published a 7.5 table movement with 1/2 round sitouts. Movement? We are discussing sit-outs in Swiss Pairs, I 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 04:03:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25H2Lf11568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:02:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g25H2BH11547 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:02:12 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g25GqFp05781 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:52:15 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 16:52 +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: DWS wrote: > Most EBU Swiss Pairs nowadays expect players to sit out eight boards > rather than have a stand-by pair. Obviously I don't get out much but I am surprised by the above. I think I would be asking for a partial refund if it happened to me. > While I have considered triangles in Swiss Pairs currently the > software would not allow it. Which is a shame, I think it would be a friendlier alternative than making a pair sit out 8 full boards. 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 Mar 6 04:13:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25HCrT11642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:12:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g25HCjH11638 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:12:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g25H2op00177 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:02:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002401c1c467$93353d60$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] ACBLLC & C&C meetings Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 09:02:43 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson attended (and participated in) the ACBLLC meeting in Las Vegas last fall. I hope that won't be one-time-only. David? Other than that, I have been the only BLML subscriber (outside of a few committee members) who attends the ACBLLC or Competition & Conventions committee meetings at each NABC. These are rather interesting, giving insight into committee thinking behind some interpretations and regulations that emerge (or don't emerge) from them..I wish some of you would join me there. AFAIK, the meetings are open to anyone willing to keep silent (not easy), but perhaps asking permission to attend from Gary Blaiss or Brad Holtsberry would be in order. As Roger Pewick relayed from Gary, the LC meets 1st Saturday morning, the C&C Monday and Tuesday mornings in a conference room.. The meetings usually run from 10 am to noon. A continental breakfast is provided, but as a non-participant I just drink their coffee. Roger, you might look into the possibility of getting the meeting room for BLML on a morning it's not being used. David might be willing to put the charge for continental breakfast on his room bill, and we could reimburse him. I'd do it, but I'm staying at a different hotel. 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 Mar 6 04:20:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25HJsS11658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:19:54 +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 g25HJkH11654 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:19:47 +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 MAA28857 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:09:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA15191 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:09:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:09:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203051709.MAA15191@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > If asked, we describe it as "11-16 HCP, 2+ diamonds, possibly longer clubs, no 5 > card major unless diamonds are longer." Balanced 16 pointers are opened 1NT. I > suppose we're remiss in not mentioning that. While this is vastly better than what I usually hear :-(, it still doesn't answer all the questions. For example, could it include hands with 2425 distribution? Or are those normally opened 2C? I think the best approach is along Sven's lines, concentrating on hand types. Thus perhaps "Several hand types: unbalanced, primary diamonds, 11-15 points; or balanced, x to y points; or unbalanced with four diamonds and four or more clubs, 11-15 points." Or whatever. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 04:24:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25HOZw11673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:24:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g25HORH11669 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 04:24:27 +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 MAA29123 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:14:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA15203 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:14:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:14:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203051714.MAA15203@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Let's remember that the Vancouver ruling was given initially > >by the TD. See > >ftp://209.45.144.70/nabc/1999spr-vancouver/vantxt08.txt > From: David Stevenson > Having now had dinner with the TD who gave the ruling, the facts > sounded completely different when he explained them to me. Can you let us know more? Are you saying that the final ruling was not as wrong as it appeared because the facts were different than the ones reported? Or that the initial ruling by the TD was not as reported? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 06:09:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25J8Nm11746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:08:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g25J8EH11742 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 06:08:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.45.22] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iK4x-00058z-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 18:54:27 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c1c478$2a91c380$162de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:59:55 -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: Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 12:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > Overheard at a recent regional: "Only positive inferences > > have to be disclosed; your opponents have to deduce the > > negative inferences for themselves." Personally, it boiled > > my blood, but I'd rather have a second opinion. If I asked > > you or your partner about a 2H opening, would you be > > obligated to immediately and freely explain that it promises > > a 4 card minor? > > Yes. The principle of full disclosure is embodied in L75A. > > Negative inferences have always been a problem since > "tricky" players have always used that as an excuse. > similarly the best way to get the truth may be to ask about > a call not made: nowadays the Laws show this to be > acceptable. > +=+ This is another item in my General Review notes: specific mention of 'inferences'. I think negative inferences are just as much inferences as positive one. Incidentally a Two Heart bid that promises a four card minor is a convention and the CC should give this information, which should also be included in the reply to a question. The pair in question have an agreement on the point - and this is not a matter in doubt. ~ 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 Mar 6 08:53:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25LmfH16401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:48:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g25LmXH16397 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:48:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g25Lccp13680 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:38:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001001c1c48e$1aaf9800$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001701c1c478$2a91c380$162de150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:37:42 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > Incidentally a Two Heart bid that promises a > four card minor is a convention and the CC should > give this information, which should also be included > in the reply to a question. The pair in question have > an agreement on the point - and this is not a matter > in doubt. Does this mean my 2H bid that denies four spades is also a convention? Or is it only inclusions, not exclusions, that make a bid conventional? 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 Mar 6 09:33:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25MQrl18165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:26:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g25MQiH18124 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:26:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3284.bb.online.no [80.212.220.212]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA20486 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:16:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000d01c1c493$6e22de20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:16:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Most EBU Swiss Pairs nowadays expect players to sit out eight boards > > rather than have a stand-by pair. > > Obviously I don't get out much but I am surprised by the above. I think I > would be asking for a partial refund if it happened to me. > > > While I have considered triangles in Swiss Pairs currently the > > software would not allow it. > > Which is a shame, I think it would be a friendlier alternative than making > a pair sit out 8 full boards. And I'm surprised. Do you run Swiss pairs with 8 boards each round? How many rounds do you then have in the completed tournament? The typical Swiss pairs in Norway use 3 or 4 boards per round and the number of rounds between 25% and 50% of the total number of pairs. Experience and theory shows that less than 25% is not enough to obtain a reasonable ranking list, and more than 50% is too much, there being too much spread between the pairs that meet in the later rounds. Quite common is 40 pairs and 16 rounds at 4 boards each for a Sunday tournament. Odd number of participants means 30 minutes sit-out which is just about acceptable. 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 Mar 6 10:39:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25Nd2u01932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:39:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g25NcsH01928 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:38:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.26.197] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iOMZ-000PtA-00; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 23:28:56 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c1c49d$f999cb80$d750e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <001701c1c478$2a91c380$162de150@dodona> <001001c1c48e$1aaf9800$339a1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:23:48 -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, March 05, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > Incidentally a Two Heart bid that promises a > > four card minor is a convention and the CC should > > give this information, which should also be included > > in the reply to a question. The pair in question have > > an agreement on the point - and this is not a matter > > in doubt. > > Does this mean my 2H bid that denies four spades > is also a convention? Or is it only inclusions, not > exclusions, that make a bid conventional? > +=+ "conveys a meaning other than" (definition) if it shows a willingness to play in the suit and nothing else it is not conventional, but if it also conveys an additional meaning about a suit other that the one named it is conventional. in any case, you have a partnership understanding here to be disclosed. ~ 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 Mar 6 10:53:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g25Nr0t01949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:53:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g25NqqH01945 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:52:52 +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 KAA04972 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:55:03 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:41:14 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:36:45 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/03/2002 10:41:30 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: [snip] >The typical Swiss pairs in Norway use 3 or 4 boards per round and the >number of rounds between 25% and 50% of the total number of pairs. >Experience and theory shows that less than 25% is not enough to >obtain a reasonable ranking list, and more than 50% is too much, >there being too much spread between the pairs that meet in the later >rounds. [snip] The typical Swiss pairs in Canberra uses 8 or 9 or 14 boards per round. However, in Canberra's club Swiss pairs or in the ABF National Swiss Pairs, we arrange to have a reserve pair on-call to prevent sit-outs. The local Canberra club also holds an annual matchpoint Swiss pairs (which event I consider a total lottery, but then I was unplaced last time :-)). Experience and theory from chess Swisses shows that number of rounds being greater than 50% of number of players results in "over-Swissing". 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 Mar 6 12:08:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2617jc13860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:07:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2617ZH13825 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:07:36 +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 g251Dto32307 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 01:13:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 00:55:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <20020304234759-r01010800-743077f5-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020304234759-r01010800-743077f5-0904-0109@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 In article <20020304234759-r01010800-743077f5-0904-0109@192.168.1.2>, Ed Reppert writes >On 3/5/02 at 1:43 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> It *is* a matter of software. Of course it *can* be programmed, but >> until someone does we have to use the software that is available, and >> the software that is available does not allow a threesome. > >Why? Is manual scoring no longer permitted? > You *really* don't want to score a Swiss pairs manually! I did it once. You need to know what an English Swiss Pairs *is* to be able to comment on this. cheers john >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/ -- 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 Mar 6 12:11:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g261BSp14620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:11:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g261BJH14587 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:11:19 +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 g251HOo32332 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 01:17:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 00:58:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >> As to the mathematics, it is very easy to arrange a triangle. The >> simplest one is for two pairs to both sit E/W and play four boards each >> against the remaining pair who sits N/S. But the software does not >> allow it. > >And between them, for each board one pair has a "sit-out" (not the same >pair all the time of course), exactly as I have said. That cannot be >avoided. > >Software doen't allow it? Well, the standard programs we use in Norway >allows that, just set up the event in the program with "rounds" according >to the definition in the law and let the seating for the "normal" tables be >the same for two and two consecutive "rounds". (If you have a tournament >with eight boards in each "round" you simply tell the program that each >round consists of four boards). No problem, and no advantage over running >a simple movement with plain sit-overs and the same number of boards for >all the tables in each round. > >Come on, I don't believe it if I shall have to explain this for experienced >directors? > Sven, you have no idea what you're talking about. this is *Swiss* Pairs. How the f*** are you going to work out the VP's for eight board matches if you score them as 2 x 4-board matches? DWS is right. There is no software in this country to do it. (and btw I started my computer career in 1966) cheers John >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 12:15:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g261FMs15419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:15:22 +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 g261FCH15388 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:15:13 +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 g251LWo32341 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 01:21:32 GMT Message-ID: <5i3V2UBNrWh8EwEI@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:03:09 +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: >DWS wrote: > >> Most EBU Swiss Pairs nowadays expect players to sit out eight boards >> rather than have a stand-by pair. > >Obviously I don't get out much but I am surprised by the above. I think I >would be asking for a partial refund if it happened to me. You'll get one without asking for it > >> While I have considered triangles in Swiss Pairs currently the >> software would not allow it. > >Which is a shame, I think it would be a friendlier alternative than making >a pair sit out 8 full boards. > >Tim > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 12:24:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g261Mbf16908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:22:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g261MSH16880 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:22:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 14647 invoked by uid 504); 6 Mar 2002 01:03:08 -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 1.4628 secs); 06 Mar 2002 01:03:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.226) by 0 with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 01:03:06 -0000 Message-ID: <006c01c1c4ab$a9e20c20$e216b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <001701c1c478$2a91c380$162de150@dodona> <001001c1c48e$1aaf9800$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <002501c1c49d$f999cb80$d750e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:10:09 +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: Marvin L. French ; Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "More should I question thee, and more I must, > Though more to know could not be more to trust." > ~ 'All's Well that Ends Well' > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Marvin L. French" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:37 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > Incidentally a Two Heart bid that promises a > > > four card minor is a convention and the CC should > > > give this information, which should also be included > > > in the reply to a question. The pair in question have > > > an agreement on the point - and this is not a matter > > > in doubt. > > > > Does this mean my 2H bid that denies four spades > > is also a convention? Or is it only inclusions, not > > exclusions, that make a bid conventional? > > > +=+ "conveys a meaning other than" (definition) > if it shows a willingness to play in the suit > and nothing else it is not conventional, but if it > also conveys an additional meaning about a suit > other that the one named it is conventional. > in any case, you have a partnership > understanding here to be disclosed. > ~ G ~ +=+ Nearly every bid contains a meaning about a suit other than the one named. Is it the intention that 'everything' is a convention? 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 Mar 6 12:56:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g261txK22641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:55:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g261toH22615 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:55:50 +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 RAA23898; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 17:45:58 -0800 Message-Id: <200203060145.RAA23898@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:10:09 +1300." <006c01c1c4ab$a9e20c20$e216b9d2@laptop> Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2002 17:45:58 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > > Grattan Endicott > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > "More should I question thee, and more I must, > > Though more to know could not be more to trust." > > ~ 'All's Well that Ends Well' > > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:37 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > > > > > > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > > > Incidentally a Two Heart bid that promises a > > > > four card minor is a convention and the CC should > > > > give this information, which should also be included > > > > in the reply to a question. The pair in question have > > > > an agreement on the point - and this is not a matter > > > > in doubt. > > > > > > Does this mean my 2H bid that denies four spades > > > is also a convention? Or is it only inclusions, not > > > exclusions, that make a bid conventional? > > > > > +=+ "conveys a meaning other than" (definition) > > if it shows a willingness to play in the suit > > and nothing else it is not conventional, but if it > > also conveys an additional meaning about a suit > > other that the one named it is conventional. > > in any case, you have a partnership > > understanding here to be disclosed. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Nearly every bid contains a meaning about a suit other than the one named. > > Is it the intention that 'everything' is a convention? This is why it's so difficult to define "convention". My gut feeling is that "a meaning about a suit other than the one named" should *not* include "denying as many as N of the suit" unless N is 1 or 2 (i.e. a bid showing a singleton or void in some suit). Thus, a 2H bid that denies 4 spades or a 1C opening that denies 7 spades don't really have a "meaning about" the spade suit. Even this attempt at a definition doesn't cover all the bases. Isn't this off the original topic, anyway? The thread was about full disclosure, and full disclosure doesn't depend on whether or not the things being disclosed are "conventions" according to the Laws' definition. That definition really affects only what SO's may or may not regulate. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 12:58:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g261wBP22988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:58:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g261vtH22947 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:57:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iQX0-000FpB-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 01:47:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:03:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 >> As to the mathematics, it is very easy to arrange a triangle. The >> simplest one is for two pairs to both sit E/W and play four boards each >> against the remaining pair who sits N/S. But the software does not >> allow it. > >And between them, for each board one pair has a "sit-out" (not the same >pair all the time of course), exactly as I have said. That cannot be >avoided. > >Software doen't allow it? Well, the standard programs we use in Norway >allows that, just set up the event in the program with "rounds" according >to the definition in the law and let the seating for the "normal" tables be >the same for two and two consecutive "rounds". (If you have a tournament >with eight boards in each "round" you simply tell the program that each >round consists of four boards). No problem, and no advantage over running >a simple movement with plain sit-overs and the same number of boards for >all the tables in each round. > >Come on, I don't believe it if I shall have to explain this for experienced >directors? If you have a Swiss Pairs program that will do this, good. We don't. -- 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 Mar 6 12:58:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g261wCG22990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:58:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g261vvH22950 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:57:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iQX0-000Fp8-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 01:48:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:08:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >IMHO, the most effective legislator is one whom abolishes their own job. > >Suppose input from BLML to the WBF Laws Commission results in an >unambiguous new edition of the Laws. Then BLML will have simultaneously >justified its existence, and terminated its need to continue to exist. True, just as the same time as everyone in Europe finds promulgations from Brussels unambiguous and EU lawyers are no longer needed. Around the same time there will be a nice man in a scarlet coat every Xmas giving us all pressies, and every time we lose a tooth and put it under our pillow there will be a nice shiny Euro next day. Israel and Palestine will become friends, everyone will like nice Saddam Hussein, and ..... Sorry, what were you saying? I think I drifted off for a moment. -- 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 Mar 6 12:58:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g261wI522998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:58:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g261vuH22948 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:57:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iQX0-000FpA-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 01:47:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 15:02:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <20020304234759-r01010800-743077f5-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020304234759-r01010800-743077f5-0904-0109@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 3/5/02 at 1:43 AM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> It *is* a matter of software. Of course it *can* be programmed, but >> until someone does we have to use the software that is available, and >> the software that is available does not allow a threesome. > >Why? Is manual scoring no longer permitted? How many Swiss Pairs tournaments have you manually scored? For that matter, how many Swiss Pairs tournaments have you played in that were manually scored? If you wish to manually score a Swiss Pairs tournament, feel free. just let me know so I can come along and laugh. -- 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 Mar 6 13:13:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g262DTR25567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:13:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g262DHH25534 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:13:18 +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 g251P0o32348 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 01:25:00 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:06:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000d01c1c493$6e22de20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000d01c1c493$6e22de20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000d01c1c493$6e22de20$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >> > Most EBU Swiss Pairs nowadays expect players to sit out eight boards >> > rather than have a stand-by pair. >> >> Obviously I don't get out much but I am surprised by the above. I think I >> would be asking for a partial refund if it happened to me. >> >> > While I have considered triangles in Swiss Pairs currently the >> > software would not allow it. >> >> Which is a shame, I think it would be a friendlier alternative than making >> a pair sit out 8 full boards. > >And I'm surprised. Do you run Swiss pairs with 8 boards each round? >How many rounds do you then have in the completed tournament? > >The typical Swiss pairs in Norway use 3 or 4 boards per round and the >number of rounds between 25% and 50% of the total number of pairs. >Experience and theory shows that less than 25% is not enough to >obtain a reasonable ranking list, and more than 50% is too much, >there being too much spread between the pairs that meet in the later >rounds. Quite common is 40 pairs and 16 rounds at 4 boards each >for a Sunday tournament. > EBU is 8 board matches, 20-0 VP scale. You get 20VP's for about 67%. There's a log function (which I can't be bothered to look up) to identify the theoretically correct number of matches for an event. 50% is far too high. It's a very different event from yours as I guess you use carry forward percentages. cheers john >Odd number of participants means 30 minutes sit-out which is just about >acceptable. > >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 13:13:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g262DPW25554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:13:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g262CkH25456 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:12:46 +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 g251QSo32352 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 01:26:28 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 01:07:46 +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 , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Sven Pran wrote: > >[snip] > >>The typical Swiss pairs in Norway use 3 or 4 boards per round and the >>number of rounds between 25% and 50% of the total number of pairs. >>Experience and theory shows that less than 25% is not enough to >>obtain a reasonable ranking list, and more than 50% is too much, >>there being too much spread between the pairs that meet in the later >>rounds. > >[snip] > >The typical Swiss pairs in Canberra uses 8 or 9 or 14 boards per round. >However, in Canberra's club Swiss pairs or in the ABF National Swiss >Pairs, we arrange to have a reserve pair on-call to prevent sit-outs. > >The local Canberra club also holds an annual matchpoint Swiss pairs >(which event I consider a total lottery, but then I was unplaced last >time :-)). > >Experience and theory from chess Swisses shows that number of rounds >being greater than 50% of number of players results in "over-Swissing". > That's using 0-1 scoring. It should be a lot lower if you're using 20-0 VP scales. cheers john >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/ -- 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 Mar 6 13:45:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g262j0e29855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:45:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g262ipH29834 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:44:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt063n33.san.rr.com [24.30.154.51]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g262YsC04478; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:34:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000c01c1c4b7$7eae5ca0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200203060145.RAA23898@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:34:47 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > My gut feeling > is that "a meaning about a suit other than the one named" should *not* > include "denying as many as N of the suit" unless N is 1 or 2 (i.e. a > bid showing a singleton or void in some suit). Thus, a 2H bid that > denies 4 spades or a 1C opening that denies 7 spades don't really have > a "meaning about" the spade suit. Even this attempt at a definition > doesn't cover all the bases. > > Isn't this off the original topic, anyway? The thread was about full > disclosure, and full disclosure doesn't depend on whether or not the > things being disclosed are "conventions" according to the Laws' > definition. That definition really affects only what SO's may or may > not regulate. Not really off-topic. Disclosure includes Alerts. The ACBL requires that most conventions be Alerted, so determining what constitutes a convention becomes important. 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 Mar 6 14:53:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g263qwC12029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:52:58 +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 g263qoH12002 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:52:50 +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 OAA09790 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:55:02 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:41:15 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:36:46 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 06/03/2002 02:41:31 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Nearly every bid contains a meaning about a suit other than the one named. > >Is it the intention that 'everything' is a convention? > >Wayne IMHO, the concept of "convention" has passed its use-by date. Instead of SOs regulating "conventions", the next Laws should let SOs regulate "partnership agreements". Instead of SOs requiring that "conventions" be alerted, SOs should require that unusual "partnership agreements" be alerted. (In ABF events, all conventions are alertable or self-alertable. The alert therefore insufficiently wakes up a player if an opponent is using the Keri convention, since they expect that the alert was due to use of the Stayman convention.) 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 Mar 6 18:40:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g267eFo22591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:40:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g267e7H22587 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:40:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2856.bb.online.no [80.212.219.40]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA10703; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:30:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000d01c1c4e0$bc922fa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:30:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am talking Swiss PAIRS. Your question of calculating VP makes me believe you are talking Swiss teams? Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 1:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > In article <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran > writes > >> As to the mathematics, it is very easy to arrange a triangle. The > >> simplest one is for two pairs to both sit E/W and play four boards each > >> against the remaining pair who sits N/S. But the software does not > >> allow it. > > > >And between them, for each board one pair has a "sit-out" (not the same > >pair all the time of course), exactly as I have said. That cannot be > >avoided. > > > >Software doen't allow it? Well, the standard programs we use in Norway > >allows that, just set up the event in the program with "rounds" according > >to the definition in the law and let the seating for the "normal" tables be > >the same for two and two consecutive "rounds". (If you have a tournament > >with eight boards in each "round" you simply tell the program that each > >round consists of four boards). No problem, and no advantage over running > >a simple movement with plain sit-overs and the same number of boards for > >all the tables in each round. > > > >Come on, I don't believe it if I shall have to explain this for experienced > >directors? > > > Sven, you have no idea what you're talking about. > > this is *Swiss* Pairs. How the f*** are you going to work out the VP's > for eight board matches if you score them as 2 x 4-board matches? > > DWS is right. There is no software in this country to do it. (and btw I > started my computer career in 1966) cheers John > > > >Sven > > > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 19:45:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g268jFJ22641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:45:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g268j6H22637 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:45:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.40.146] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iWt7-000OsZ-00; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 08:35:05 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c1c4ea$472ce340$9228e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Cc: References: <200203060145.RAA23898@mailhub.irvine.com> <000c01c1c4b7$7eae5ca0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 08:29:51 -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: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) . > > > > Isn't this off the original topic, anyway? The thread was about > > full disclosure, and full disclosure doesn't depend on whether > > or not the things being disclosed are "conventions" according > > to the Laws' definition. That definition really affects only > > what SO's may or may not regulate. > > Not really off-topic. Disclosure includes Alerts. The ACBL > requires that most conventions be Alerted, so determining > what constitutes a convention becomes important. > +=+ Special partnership agreements must be fully and freely available to opponents. A player need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership agreement unless an opposing pair may be expected to understand its meaning. If they should not be expected to understand its meaning without it, his side may only use the call if they disclose it in accordance with the regulations. So what your opponents will know about your call as a matter of general (available to all) bridge knowledge may be used without disclosure; as a matter of law other agreements, explicit or implicit must be disclosed. If you are not required to alert them your only route to disclosure is to show them on your convention card. The SO does not have the power to say they need not be disclosed. If a bid specifically denies or specifies a holding in an unnamed suit - and it is not general bridge knowledge that this will be so - the laws demand disclosure. Otherwise you are using a concealed partnership understanding and that should get you hung, drawn and quartered. ~ 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 Mar 6 19:56:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g268uY522657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 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 mailout04.sul.t-online.com (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g268uQH22653 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:56:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd01.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16iX47-0006iW-00; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:46:27 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.51.119]) by fwd01.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16iX3s-1SIunoC; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:46:12 +0100 Message-ID: <3C85D752.BB0A42CC@t-online.de> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:46:10 +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: Wayne Burrows , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <001701c1c478$2a91c380$162de150@dodona> <001001c1c48e$1aaf9800$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <002501c1c49d$f999cb80$d750e150@dodona> <006c01c1c4ab$a9e20c20$e216b9d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows schrieb: > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > +=+ "conveys a meaning other than" (definition) > > if it shows a willingness to play in the suit > > and nothing else it is not conventional, but if it > > also conveys an additional meaning about a suit > > other that the one named it is conventional. > > in any case, you have a partnership > > understanding here to be disclosed. > > ~ G ~ +=+ > > Nearly every bid contains a meaning about a suit other than the one named. > > Is it the intention that 'everything' is a convention? > > Wayne Surely there is a difference between an inferential meaning and a conventional one? If the response to Stayman shows spades, the inference is that responder hasn`t got 4 cards in hearts. This is common sense. No partnership agreement is necessary, no conventional meaning. A 2H response may or may not say something about spades, an agreement may be present to the effect that responder denies 4 spades (for example because a specialized bid showing both majors is part of the agreed system). In this case the need for an alert is evident. There is information being passed which is hidden (without an alert) from the opponents. 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 Wed Mar 6 20:08:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2698dd22674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:08:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2698VH22670 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:08:32 +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 g268vdc28907 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:57:40 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Mar 06 09:54:13 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KF1BETDIRU00062U@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:57:00 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:56:44 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:56:59 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: [BLML] disclosure 2 To: "'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 received a what I consider to be an interesting question. Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your filled out convention card to the table which only says: we play the same system as you do. The reason for this question is worth mentioning as well. Consider a multi session teams event in which a team after 3 sessions is comfortably ahead. They don't need swings anymore, so adopting their opponents system gives the highest expectation of washes. But the question is meant generally. In a pairs event it means that this pair changes sysytems every round. I know that a sponsoring organization could forbid it by regulation, but what if it didn't? Don't get lost in details, I know the problem of 2 pairs with this same strategy meeting each other. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 20:30:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g269ToQ22697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:29:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g269TgH22693 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:29:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-4022.bb.online.no [80.212.223.182]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA17334 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:19:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008401c1c4f0$0b197f20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <001701c1c478$2a91c380$162de150@dodona> <001001c1c48e$1aaf9800$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <002501c1c49d$f999cb80$d750e150@dodona> <006c01c1c4ab$a9e20c20$e216b9d2@laptop> <3C85D752.BB0A42CC@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:19:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Matthias Berghaus" ..... > Surely there is a difference between an inferential meaning and a > conventional one? If the response to Stayman shows spades, the inference > is that responder hasn`t got 4 cards in hearts. This is common sense. No > partnership agreement is necessary, no conventional meaning. A 2H > response may or may not say something about spades, an agreement may be > present to the effect that responder denies 4 spades (for example > because a specialized bid showing both majors is part of the agreed > system). In this case the need for an alert is evident. There is > information being passed which is hidden (without an alert) from the > opponents. > > Best regards > > Matthias Generally correct, but you may be interested to know that for instance Goren: New Contract Bridge in a Nutshell (issued in the 1960-ies) dictated that with both majors the correct answer was 2S! Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has not always been so. There is a fine line between inferential and conventional meanings. Very often it depends upon the actual environment and what is generally expected by the public there. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 20:46:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g269kBv22716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:46:11 +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 g269k2H22712 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 20:46:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0310.bb.online.no [80.212.209.54]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09635 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:36:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008c01c1c4f2$53cda3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:36:00 +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 South is declarer, a trick has been completed and everybody except East have turned their cards face down when West asks if he may see the cards. I get summoned to the table: I explained law 66A and included that I would not be too happy if East, on learning that his partner was interested in seeing the cards, excercised his right to demand all cards turned face up (not for his own, but for his partner's interest). There was no problem, East turned his card face down and play continued. But how does this group look at such a case? 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 Mar 6 22:24:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26BNsL03223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:23:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26BNfH03187 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:23:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g26BDhA10933 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:13:43 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:13 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: 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: <000601c1c4ea$472ce340$9228e150@dodona> > So what your opponents will know about your call as a > matter of general (available to all) bridge knowledge may be > used without disclosure; as a matter of law other agreements, > explicit or implicit must be disclosed. If you are not > required to alert them your only route to disclosure is to > show them on your convention card. The main route to detailed disclosure in every event I have ever played is by responding to questions asked by the opposition. I would even go so far as to say that this is the "default" route to exposure for anything that the SO does not require disclosed in other ways. Two of the following (non-vul) 2H openers are suitable for opening when vulnerable - just how big is the CC on which you want all partnership understandings disclosed? x,QJ5432,J432,xx: x,QJT97x,x,JT9xx: xxx,QJ97xx,Q,xxx: xx,QJ986x,-,JT87x > The SO does not have the power to say they need not be disclosed. They probably do as long as we use terms like "general bridge knowledge". I would much prefer to hear that answers should try to be as helpful as possible regardless of what the person answering thinks is "general bridge knowledge". > If a bid > specifically denies or specifies a holding in an unnamed > suit - and it is not general bridge knowledge that this will > be so - the laws demand disclosure. Personally I would think it is general bridge knowledge that "some people play major pre-empts deny the other major, some don't". Both styles could be used freely without any alert/pre-disclosure. If asked the specific style should be explained. 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 Mar 6 22:24:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26BNx203235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:23:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26BNjH03203 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:23:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g26BDkW11012 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:13:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:13 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: 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: <008401c1c4f0$0b197f20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sven wrote: > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has > not always been so. That may be so where you are, I think it is "common sense" to take into account significant differences in suit quality such that AKTx,98xx,Kx,QJx responds 2S. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 22:24:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26BNhO03189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:23:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26BNXH03160 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:23:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g26BDar10852 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:13:36 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:13 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <002501c1c49d$f999cb80$d750e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > > Does this mean my 2H bid that denies four spades > > is also a convention? Or is it only inclusions, not > > exclusions, that make a bid conventional? > > > +=+ "conveys a meaning other than" (definition) > if it shows a willingness to play in the suit > and nothing else it is not conventional, but if it > also conveys an additional meaning about a suit > other that the one named it is conventional. I have often been told by opponents (usually just after a good result for me) "you shouldn't open 3H with a 4 card spade suit". This seems a widely held belief. Are you really suggesting that all these people are playing a conventional 3H opener? To me the difference between this and Richard's conventional 2H occurs when the list of exclusions is such that a positive message about some other (perhaps unspecified) suit is conveyed Thus if instead he suggested: >A 2D opening shows any hand with primary hearts or primary spades, >5332/6331/6332 shape, and 6-10 HCP. > >I define a 2H opening shows any hand with 5-*7* hearts, 0-3 spades, and >6-10 HCP but denies any hand suitable for a 2D opening. It would again be natural since a 4cm is no longer promised. > in any case, you have a partnership > understanding here to be disclosed. Don't we all when it comes to pre-empting style? I'd be extremely surprised if Marv didn't explain the "denies 4S" in response to a question (unless it was already on his cc). 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 Mar 6 22:38:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26Bbpg05720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:37:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26BbfH05690 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:37:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1749.bb.online.no [80.212.214.213]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA17173 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:27:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <011501c1c501$ec51af60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:27:38 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > In-Reply-To: <008401c1c4f0$0b197f20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> > Sven wrote: > > > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has > > not always been so. > > That may be so where you are, I think it is "common sense" to take into > account significant differences in suit quality such that AKTx,98xx,Kx,QJx > responds 2S. > > Tim No, as I said: According to my copy of his book Goren wrote explicitly that with 4 cards (Qxxx or better) in both majors the 1NT opener should respond 2S, and not 2H as we would unanimously do today. Time changes. 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 Mar 6 23:31:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26CUoB15668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:30:50 +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 g26CUbH15620 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:30:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.75]) by mta01ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GSJWYC00.0A7 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 22:20:36 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.173 ([144.138.141.173]) by PSMAM03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 83/10824110); 06 Mar 2002 22:20:32 Message-ID: <005e01c1c509$50a2ab20$ad8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:20:28 +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: >I received a what I consider to be an interesting question. >Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your >filled out convention card to the table which only says: we play the >same system as you do. The reason for this question is worth >mentioning as well. Consider a multi session teams event in which a >team after 3 sessions is comfortably ahead. They don't need swings >anymore, so adopting their opponents system gives the highest >expectation of washes. Doesn't this work only if NS and EW in the opposing team are playing the same system, as EW would want to play the same system as EW? >But the question is meant generally. In a pairs event it means that this >pair changes systems every round. > >I know that a sponsoring organization could forbid it by regulation, but >what if it didn't? Don't get lost in details, I know the problem of 2 pairs >with this same strategy meeting each other. For a bit of fun, a young Sydney pair sometimes used to play the Chameleon System, which was exactly as you describe. One of them told me that there were several problems, including: - Doubt about the legality of referring to the opponents' (= our own) CCs. - Having to wait to start play while the opponents called the Director. I think they tried to minimise this by playing Standard against some (usually older) pairs. - Incomplete CCs. It's a bit embarrassing to ask declarer whether his side gives Normal or Upside Down Count Signals. - Difficulty using Relay Systems and the like. I think they concluded that it was a bit of fun, but not useful in a serious context, best used at Christmas Party Games and other social occasions. If they had have run into a pair playing the same system, they had their Standard CCs in reserve in their pockets. I could email one of them for more information, if you really want me to. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 6 23:44:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26CiJS18309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:44:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26Ci3H18272 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:44:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.50.173] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iaYf-0008tc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:30:14 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c1c50b$19c77a20$ad32e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <015901c1bf8b$6dbdd000$6700a8c0@alcatelno> <010901c1c064$73d9ca00$84053dd4@b0e7g1> <001901c1c06f$ca2f87e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00b201c1c092$6d3f2ea0$0e053dd4@b0e7g1> <00c001c1c0a0$acee8e20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <004701c1c193$c642bba0$d851e150@dodona> <4fxEVJAGAsg8EwPm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 12:17:32 -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 March 2002 00:29 Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem > Grattan Endicott writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >+=+ A 'session' is an extended period of play during > >which a number of boards, specified by the sponsoring > >orgaization, is scheduled to be played. The schedule > >may designate for any one partnership a different > >number from another partnership; it does not include > >any number of boards not due to be played. The > >Director is the agent of the sponsoring organization. > > While this is true I do not see what relevance it has > to whether a player expects to sit out. > +=+ Well, I think a player expects to sit out if informed by the Director that his session will comprise only a given 24 of the 27 boards in play. Or, to look from the other side, for each contestant a 'session' comprises those boards only that are designated for that contestant to play. ~ 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 Mar 6 23:44:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26CiI218305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:44:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26Ci3H18265 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:44:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.50.173] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iaYe-0008tc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:30:13 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c1c50b$19105f20$ad32e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 11:33:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: 05 March 2002 07:47 Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions > > Suppose input from BLML to the WBF Laws > Commission results in an unambiguous new > edition of the Laws. Then BLML will have > simultaneously justified its existence, and > terminated its need to continue to exist. > +=+ I think interpretation of the laws is a futile objective for blml. That is the role of bodies given the authority to interpret. A valid use of blml is to spread awareness of official interpretations. A secondary role is to draw attention to any gaps or need to clarify - and I am not sanguine that everything can or will be foreseen even when 'unambiguous' laws are in print. However, a far more important role for blml in my opinion is one that helps TDs, and especially those who do not receive adequate training from their NBOs, to develop their skills in their jobs. Procedures for TDs and the application of the given Law are subjects that will not die and I think blml as an open public seminarium has a valuable contribution to offer. ~ 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 Mar 6 23:44:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26CiMk18312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:44:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26Ci5H18275 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 23:44:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.50.173] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iaYh-0008tc-00; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 12:30:15 +0000 Message-ID: <001401c1c50b$1a894380$ad32e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <200203041642.LAA09237@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:38:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 04 March 2002 16:42 Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? > > I'm curious... the bid is only illegal because of a > 2-point range discrepancy on the 5-5 minors. > The agreement was 8-11, but if it had been 10-11, > the 2D convention would have been completely > legal. > +=+ Could you please amplify what you are saying, Steve? 10-11 is not 'a strong option' such as is referred to in the exclusion from what is brown sticker. Do we have a different definition of brown sticker in force ? +=+ > > What about ruling that the opponents should > assume that the true agreement is the legal one, > and adjust the score only if the actual holding is >the one making the convention illegal (8-9, both > minors)? > -- +=+ The Director must refer to the regulations and what they say about dealing with use of illegal conventions. +=+ ~ 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 Mar 7 00:02:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26D2de21295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:02:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26D2TH21271 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:02:30 +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 NAA25028; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:51:39 +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 NAA15365; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:52:32 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020306135616.00a86530@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:56:47 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: <011501c1c501$ec51af60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 12:27 6/03/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has > > > not always been so. > > > > That may be so where you are, I think it is "common sense" to take into > > account significant differences in suit quality such that AKTx,98xx,Kx,QJx > > responds 2S. > > > > Tim > >No, as I said: According to my copy of his book Goren wrote explicitly that >with 4 cards (Qxxx or better) in both majors the 1NT opener should respond >2S, and not 2H as we would unanimously do today. Time changes. AG : in France, he should respond either 2NT or 3C - according to range. >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 Mar 7 00:05:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26D4wZ21681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:04:58 +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 g26D4mH21656 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:04:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16iawV-0006La-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 07:54:51 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020306074736.00b2fcb0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 07:55:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: <002501c1c49d$f999cb80$d750e150@dodona> References: <001701c1c478$2a91c380$162de150@dodona> <001001c1c48e$1aaf9800$339a1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:23 PM 3/5/02, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Marvin L. French" > > > Does this mean my 2H bid that denies four spades > > is also a convention? Or is it only inclusions, not > > exclusions, that make a bid conventional? > > >+=+ "conveys a meaning other than" (definition) > if it shows a willingness to play in the suit >and nothing else it is not conventional, but if it >also conveys an additional meaning about a suit >other that the one named it is conventional. > in any case, you have a partnership >understanding here to be disclosed. Unfortunately, applying the definition literally is a bit too simplistic. I think there's an implication that "conveys a meaning other than..." applies to "meanings" which are not available from "general knowledge and experience". If I open 1S playing Standard American, I promise that: (a) I have at least five spades. (b) I have at most the same number of hearts [or diamonds or clubs] as spades. By promising (b), I have "convey[ed] an additional meaning about a suit other than the one named", but I don't think anyone wants to classify my 1S bid as conventional. 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 Mar 7 00:05:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26D5V721766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:05:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26D5MH21735 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:05:23 +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 NAA01751; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:52:41 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA18431; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:55:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020306135757.00a86230@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:59:39 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks In-Reply-To: <008c01c1c4f2$53cda3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:36 6/03/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >South is declarer, a trick has been completed >and everybody except East have turned their >cards face down when West asks if he may >see the cards. I get summoned to the table: > >I explained law 66A and included that I would not >be too happy if East, on learning that his partner >was interested in seeing the cards, excercised >his right to demand all cards turned face up >(not for his own, but for his partner's interest). > >There was no problem, East turned his card >face down and play continued. > >But how does this group look at such a case? AG : I would apply L73C : avoid taking *any* advantage of this information (note the words 'for his side' which mean that he shouldn't do anything to help partner 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 Thu Mar 7 00:08:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26D83p22227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:08:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26D7rH22195 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:07:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from nyc.rr.com (66-65-66-59.nyc.rr.com [66.65.66.59]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id g26CuElu016606 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 07:56:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C861250.7F95724D@nyc.rr.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 07:57:52 -0500 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-WorldNet (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Submissions Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks References: <008c01c1c4f2$53cda3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Law 66A says "either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced for his inspection." Notice the word "his", singular. The right isn't to demand all cards be turned face up. No problem: I just face my card so East, but not West can see it. Sven Pran wrote: > > South is declarer, a trick has been completed > and everybody except East have turned their > cards face down when West asks if he may > see the cards. I get summoned to the table: > > I explained law 66A and included that I would not > be too happy if East, on learning that his partner > was interested in seeing the cards, excercised > his right to demand all cards turned face up > (not for his own, but for his partner's interest). > > There was no problem, East turned his card > face down and play continued. > > But how does this group look at such a case? > > 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/ -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 00:11:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26DBci22869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:11:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com (mailout11.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26DBTH22847 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:11:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd09.sul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16iaqg-0004RA-07; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:48:50 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[80.135.155.3]) by fwd09.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16iaqc-0plrtYC; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:48:46 +0100 Message-ID: <3C86102E.F041E1FB@t-online.de> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 13:48:46 +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] Law 66A - inspection of tricks References: <008c01c1c4f2$53cda3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran schrieb: > > South is declarer, a trick has been completed > and everybody except East have turned their > cards face down when West asks if he may > see the cards. I get summoned to the table: > > I explained law 66A and included that I would not > be too happy if East, on learning that his partner > was interested in seeing the cards, excercised > his right to demand all cards turned face up > (not for his own, but for his partner's interest). > > There was no problem, East turned his card > face down and play continued. > > But how does this group look at such a case? > > Sven > What case,please? The rules are clear, no problem. You only get a problem if East DOES ask to inspect the trick. This can get a bit tricky, of course. So you should - as I assume you have - tell East beforehand (lucky if you get called in time) not to ask for an inspection if he never intended to ask for one before his partner did so. If East asks before you are summoned ... Well,I wonder wether Law 16 covers this. It looks like it does. ..mannerisms of opponents... So this could be called a mannerism. Since Law 16 speaks of ACTIONS, not only bids or plays I think it`s covered. On the other hand you should try to find out wether East intended to ask for an inspection and was just "preempted" by partner. Difficult to prove for poor East. Best regards Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 00:12:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26DCWF22991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:12:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26DCLH22964 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:12:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3054.bb.online.no [80.212.219.238]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA03347 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:02:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <014901c1c50f$265b8d40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020306135616.00a86530@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:02:19 +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 From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 12:27 6/03/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > > > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has > > > > not always been so. > > > > > > That may be so where you are, I think it is "common sense" to take into > > > account significant differences in suit quality such that AKTx,98xx,Kx,QJx > > > responds 2S. > > > > > > Tim > > > >No, as I said: According to my copy of his book Goren wrote explicitly that > >with 4 cards (Qxxx or better) in both majors the 1NT opener should respond > >2S, and not 2H as we would unanimously do today. Time changes. > > AG : in France, he should respond either 2NT or 3C - according to range. Only sustaining my impression that what is "common sense", "natural" or whatever is a matter of where, and which people are involved. (In Norway the main rule with both majors is to answer 2H, some pairs answer 2NT, and again other pairs use 2NT to deny any 4 card major but showing a maximum strength 1NT opening. Take your pick!) 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 Mar 7 00:14:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26DEI023292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:14:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com (mailout07.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26DE9H23274 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:14:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd09.sul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16ib5Y-0000cI-08; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:04:12 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[80.135.140.48]) by fwd09.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16ib5K-1kjBxoC; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:03:58 +0100 Message-ID: <3C8613BE.C698B8E8@t-online.de> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:03:58 +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] disclosure 2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." schrieb: > > I received a what I consider to be an interesting question. > Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your filled > out convention card to the table which only says: we play the same system as > you do. The reason for this question is worth mentioning as well. Consider a > multi session teams event in which a team after 3 sessions is comfortably > ahead. They don't need swings anymore, so adopting their opponents system > gives the highest expectation of washes. > But the question is meant generally. In a pairs event it means that this > pair changes sysytems every round. > > I know that a sponsoring organization could forbid it by regulation, but > what if it didn't? Don't get lost in details, I know the problem of 2 pairs > with this same strategy meeting each other. > > ton > -- I believe most SOs have regulations for CCs which effectively ban this sort of thing. At least German regulations do so. Here you can play what Peter Gill described as the Chameleon Sytem only if your opponents play a system you don`t need a CC for, which means Stayman, Blackwood,strong jump shifts. This probably won`t happen if you have a lead to protect.... On top of this you may not change your system during a tournament (in Germany). Best regards Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 00:16:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26DGJD23582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:16:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26DG9H23558 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:16:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3138.bb.online.no [80.212.220.66]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA29502; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:06:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <015701c1c50f$ae632900$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020306135757.00a86230@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:06:05 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 10:36 6/03/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > >South is declarer, a trick has been completed > >and everybody except East have turned their > >cards face down when West asks if he may > >see the cards. I get summoned to the table: > > > >I explained law 66A and included that I would not > >be too happy if East, on learning that his partner > >was interested in seeing the cards, excercised > >his right to demand all cards turned face up > >(not for his own, but for his partner's interest). > > > >There was no problem, East turned his card > >face down and play continued. > > > >But how does this group look at such a case? > > AG : I would apply L73C : avoid taking *any* advantage of this information > (note the words 'for his side' which mean that he shouldn't do anything to > help partner either). > > Best regards, > > Alain. Good point! (Frankly I didn't think of that one myself, but I should have) Thanks, and 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 Mar 7 00:18:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26DIB823882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:18:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26DI1H23864 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:18:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ib9J-0007ho-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 08:08:05 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020306080224.00b31830@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 08:09:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 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 03:56 AM 3/6/02, Kooijman wrote: >I received a what I consider to be an interesting question. >Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your >filled >out convention card to the table which only says: we play the same >system as >you do. The reason for this question is worth mentioning as well. >Consider a >multi session teams event in which a team after 3 sessions is comfortably >ahead. They don't need swings anymore, so adopting their opponents system >gives the highest expectation of washes. >But the question is meant generally. In a pairs event it means that this >pair changes sysytems every round. > >I know that a sponsoring organization could forbid it by regulation, but >what if it didn't? Don't get lost in details, I know the problem of 2 >pairs >with this same strategy meeting each other. In the 60s, I used to do this with some frequency, and nobody ever suggested that it might be contrary to Law. Eventually the ACBL effectively outlawed the practice by instituting a regulation that placed severe resrictions on changing methods during a session, effectively banning the varying of one's basic system. I'm quite sure that if you asked the ACBL, they would tell you it is not forbidden by TFLB, but is so by SO regulation. 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 Mar 7 00:33:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26DXRr26140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:33:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26DXHH26112 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:33:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3413.bb.online.no [80.212.221.85]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA01335 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:23:16 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <016f01c1c512$130bace0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <008c01c1c4f2$53cda3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3C861250.7F95724D@nyc.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:23:15 +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: "Michael Kopera" > Law 66A says "either defender may, until he has turned his own card face > down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be > faced for his inspection." Notice the word "his", singular. The right > isn't to demand all cards be turned face up. No problem: I just face my > card so East, but not West can see it. I don't know where you found this text, in my law book it reads: "So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced." In the commentaries to the 1987 laws (Law 66 was identical) we find: "If he does so, all four players at the table will again see all four cards." Personally I think the remark by Alan Gottcheiner to use Law 73C covers the case perfectly. 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 Mar 7 00:49:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26DmxX28778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:48:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26DmnH28741 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:48:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3728.bb.online.no [80.212.222.144]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA14295 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:38:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <017a01c1c514$3eb5bc80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <008c01c1c4f2$53cda3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3C86102E.F041E1FB@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:38:48 +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: "Matthias Berghaus" > > South is declarer, a trick has been completed > > and everybody except East have turned their > > cards face down when West asks if he may > > see the cards. I get summoned to the table: > > > > I explained law 66A and included that I would not > > be too happy if East, on learning that his partner > > was interested in seeing the cards, excercised > > his right to demand all cards turned face up > > (not for his own, but for his partner's interest). > > > > There was no problem, East turned his card > > face down and play continued. > > > > But how does this group look at such a case? > > > > Sven > > > What case,please? The rules are clear, no problem. You only get a > problem if East DOES ask to inspect the trick. This can get a bit > tricky, of course. So you should - as I assume you have - tell East > beforehand (lucky if you get called in time) not to ask for an > inspection if he never intended to ask for one before his partner did > so. > If East asks before you are summoned ... Well,I wonder wether Law 16 > covers this. It looks like it does. ..mannerisms of opponents... So this > could be called a mannerism. > Since Law 16 speaks of ACTIONS, not only bids or plays I think it`s > covered. > On the other hand you should try to find out wether East intended to ask > for an inspection and was just "preempted" by partner. Difficult to > prove for poor East. East has obviously received Unauthorized Information (namely that West has an interest in seeing the cards just played), but I do not believe using law16 can be correct here unless we consider East to having two logical alternatives: Asking and not asking the cards to be faced again. IMO that is pulling it too far. However, I think Law73C is appropriate: East must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side (by excercising his right under law66A) (Incidently, I find the use of the word "accrue" in law73C rather strange unless my Webster's has the explanation of this word wrong. Anyway, the meaning of law73C seems perfectly clear 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 Thu Mar 7 01:47:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26EkWw10126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:46:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26EkIH10082 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:46:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g26EaLi04449 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:36:21 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:36 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: 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: Richard Hills wrote: > Instead of SOs regulating "conventions", the next Laws should let SOs > regulate "partnership agreements". Please god no! If we give SOs the power to forbid weak(strong) NT or 4 card major openings, or to set minimum point requirements for 3/4 level pre-empts then some will undoubtedly do so. The freedom to bid naturally is the one right enshrined in the laws that should never be changed. > Instead of SOs requiring that "conventions" be alerted, SOs should > require that unusual "partnership agreements" be alerted. This is a completely different issue. SOs can already require what they like in terms of alerting (whether of conventional or natural bids). The EBU rules on alerting are reasonable, simple, and (except for a few moans from my rubber bridge playing teammates) fairly popular. 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 Mar 7 01:47:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26EkWj10131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:46:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26EkJH10088 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:46:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g26EaM304463 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:36:22 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:36 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: 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: <011501c1c501$ec51af60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> > > > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has > > > not always been so. > > > > That may be so where you are, I think it is "common sense" to take > > into account significant differences in suit quality such that > > AKTx,98xx,Kx,QJx responds 2S. > > > > Tim > > No, as I said: According to my copy of his book Goren wrote explicitly > that with 4 cards (Qxxx or better) in both majors the 1NT opener should > respond 2S, and not 2H as we would unanimously do today. Time changes. Sven, what you said the first time was that it was "common sense" to respond 2H with both majors without mention of suit quality. This time you say that with Qxxx or better in both majors we would *unanimously* respond 2H. While Goren's approach (and indeed mine) may now be less common than yours I do not think that anybody should draw inferences about the H length of the 2S bidder without asking. 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 Mar 7 01:59:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26ExKo12575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g26EwrH12505 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:58:54 +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 16iciq-0009aS-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:48:55 +0000 Message-ID: <3CJXSzCjhhh8Ew20@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:23:47 +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 Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> Most EBU Swiss Pairs nowadays expect players to sit out eight boards >> rather than have a stand-by pair. > >Obviously I don't get out much but I am surprised by the above. I think I >would be asking for a partial refund if it happened to me. The EBU policy is to give a sitting-out pair 15 VPs [out of 20] and a pro rata refund of their entry fee. Most players seem to like it. >> While I have considered triangles in Swiss Pairs currently the >> software would not allow it. >Which is a shame, I think it would be a friendlier alternative than making >a pair sit out 8 full boards. Me too. -- 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 Mar 7 01:59:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26ExOR12582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26EwsH12506 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:58:54 +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 16iciq-0009aR-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:48:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:22:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000d01c1c4e0$bc922fa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000d01c1c4e0$bc922fa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 >I am talking Swiss PAIRS. > >Your question of calculating VP makes me believe >you are talking Swiss teams? We are talking Swiss PAIRS. Swiss events where pairs are matched against each other each round. I have been in charge of something like fifty such things, have been an assistant TD at something over a hundred, and have played in about fifty, and won two. So I have some idea about them. There is no available software to score a triple in Swiss Pairs in England. -- 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 Mar 7 02:00:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26ExQn12585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g26EwtH12516 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:58:56 +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 16iciq-0009aT-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:48:56 +0000 Message-ID: <2SdXW+Cyjhh8Ew3w@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:26:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <000d01c1c493$6e22de20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000d01c1c493$6e22de20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 >> > Most EBU Swiss Pairs nowadays expect players to sit out eight boards >> > rather than have a stand-by pair. >> >> Obviously I don't get out much but I am surprised by the above. I think I >> would be asking for a partial refund if it happened to me. >> >> > While I have considered triangles in Swiss Pairs currently the >> > software would not allow it. >> >> Which is a shame, I think it would be a friendlier alternative than making >> a pair sit out 8 full boards. > >And I'm surprised. Do you run Swiss pairs with 8 boards each round? >How many rounds do you then have in the completed tournament? Six. WTP? At Brighton, 13. >The typical Swiss pairs in Norway use 3 or 4 boards per round and the >number of rounds between 25% and 50% of the total number of pairs. >Experience and theory shows that less than 25% is not enough to >obtain a reasonable ranking list, and more than 50% is too much, >there being too much spread between the pairs that meet in the later >rounds. Quite common is 40 pairs and 16 rounds at 4 boards each >for a Sunday tournament. So, we do it differently. Why not? In Australia they use imp scoring. >Odd number of participants means 30 minutes sit-out which is just about >acceptable. So why have you kept telling us that they do not sit out for a full round in Norway? You have kept telling us that the software allows triples! -- 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 Mar 7 02:00:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26ExSX12589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:28 +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-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 g26EwsH12509 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:58:55 +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 16iciq-0009aU-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:48:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:28:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions References: <200203051714.MAA15203@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200203051714.MAA15203@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 >> >Let's remember that the Vancouver ruling was given initially >> >by the TD. See >> >ftp://209.45.144.70/nabc/1999spr-vancouver/vantxt08.txt > >> From: David Stevenson >> Having now had dinner with the TD who gave the ruling, the facts >> sounded completely different when he explained them to me. > >Can you let us know more? Are you saying that the final ruling was not >as wrong as it appeared because the facts were different than the ones >reported? Or that the initial ruling by the TD was not as reported? I cannot really remember the details, but the ruling by the TD, even if wrong, did not sound nearly so obviously wrong the way he described it. I suppose the facts were different from reported. -- 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 Mar 7 02:00:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26ExVN12594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26EwxH12535 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:00 +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 16icix-0009aQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:49:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:32:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <001701c1c478$2a91c380$162de150@dodona> <001001c1c48e$1aaf9800$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <002501c1c49d$f999cb80$d750e150@dodona> <006c01c1c4ab$a9e20c20$e216b9d2@laptop> <3C85D752.BB0A42CC@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: <3C85D752.BB0A42CC@t-online.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Matthias Berghaus writes >Surely there is a difference between an inferential meaning and a >conventional one? If the response to Stayman shows spades, the inference >is that responder hasn`t got 4 cards in hearts. This is common sense. No >partnership agreement is necessary, no conventional meaning. This shows exactly the problems that abound with a lack of Full Disclosure: people then make deductions that are different from those other pairs would make. With most of my partners a response showing spades does not deny hearts. It is not a matter of common sense at all: it is a matter of agreement. You may think that a player with both majors will respond hearts, as I do by agreement with a couple of partners, but that is not true for many 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 Mar 7 02:00:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26ExXK12599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26Ex2H12545 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:03 +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 16iciy-0009aR-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:49:05 +0000 Message-ID: <1ioXK7Dlxhh8Ew14@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:40:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >I received a what I consider to be an interesting question. >Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your filled >out convention card to the table which only says: we play the same system as >you do. The reason for this question is worth mentioning as well. Consider a >multi session teams event in which a team after 3 sessions is comfortably >ahead. They don't need swings anymore, so adopting their opponents system >gives the highest expectation of washes. >But the question is meant generally. In a pairs event it means that this >pair changes sysytems every round. > >I know that a sponsoring organization could forbid it by regulation, but >what if it didn't? Don't get lost in details, I know the problem of 2 pairs >with this same strategy meeting each other. I believe it is a matter for the SO, so they should forbid it or allow it. If they do neither it seems permissible to me. Of course, the problem is that they will not know the system well enough for good disclosure. But, of course, the theory is that their opponents do not need to ask them anything because they already know the answer! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 02:00:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26Exb212607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:37 +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-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 g26Ex4H12551 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:05 +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 16iciy-0009aT-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:49:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:38:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBLLC & C&C meetings References: <002401c1c467$93353d60$339a1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002401c1c467$93353d60$339a1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >David Stevenson attended (and participated in) the ACBLLC meeting in Las >Vegas last fall. I hope that won't be one-time-only. David? My current intention is to come to Phoenix in the fall, and I hope to attend the ACBLLC. I was surprised when attending in Las Vegas to be told to speak freely if I wished. I do not think I said anything world- shattering though! -- 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 Mar 7 02:00:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26ExYd12600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:34 +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-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 g26Ex4H12549 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:59:05 +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 16iciy-0009aS-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 14:49:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:35:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <200203051709.MAA15191@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200203051709.MAA15191@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: Ed Reppert >> If asked, we describe it as "11-16 HCP, 2+ diamonds, possibly longer clubs, no >5 >> card major unless diamonds are longer." Balanced 16 pointers are opened 1NT. I >> suppose we're remiss in not mentioning that. > >While this is vastly better than what I usually hear :-(, it still >doesn't answer all the questions. For example, could it include >hands with 2425 distribution? Or are those normally opened 2C? > >I think the best approach is along Sven's lines, concentrating on hand >types. Thus perhaps "Several hand types: unbalanced, primary diamonds, >11-15 points; or balanced, x to y points; or unbalanced with four >diamonds and four or more clubs, 11-15 points." Or whatever. Maybe, but some people go too far into detail, and it just becomes noise. So long as you hide nothing, it is not unreasonable to allow someone who needs to know a specific detail to ask via a supplementary question. For example, if after a 1D opening I need to know whether 2=4=2=5 is possible, I do not think it unreasonable that I should have to ask. -- 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 Mar 7 02:13:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26FDPB14944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:13:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mel-rto7.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-7.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26FDDH14918 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:13:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by mel-rto7.wanadoo.fr; 6 Mar 2002 16:03:11 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.249.79.136) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr; 6 Mar 2002 16:02:56 +0100 Message-ID: <009e01c1c51f$e2dd5a60$884ff9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Laws" Subject: Tr: [BLML] disclosure 2 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 16:02:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, I think you mean they want to play same system as opponents in the other room, because same system as your opponnents at the table doesn't help! Say the field play strong NT, if your opponents play weak, if suddenly you play weak, you just increase the probability of a swing ... And it can be done only at teams. I don't see why it could be forbidden, you only need to steal a CC before the match and make copies ... And you need both your pairs to do so. Funny, may be i try once (no, i am joking). Hope to see you in Montréal, Olivier ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:56 AM Subject: [BLML] disclosure 2 > I received a what I consider to be an interesting question. > Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your filled > out convention card to the table which only says: we play the same system as > you do. The reason for this question is worth mentioning as well. Consider a > multi session teams event in which a team after 3 sessions is comfortably > ahead. They don't need swings anymore, so adopting their opponents system > gives the highest expectation of washes. > But the question is meant generally. In a pairs event it means that this > pair changes sysytems every round. > > I know that a sponsoring organization could forbid it by regulation, but > what if it didn't? Don't get lost in details, I know the problem of 2 pairs > with this same strategy meeting each other. > > ton > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 02:53:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26FrIu16508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:53:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26Fr8H16487 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:53:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.14.92] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16idVe-000Cq7-00; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:39:18 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c1c525$84133e40$5c0ee150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 13:40:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 March 2002 11:13 Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > > in any case, you have a partnership > > understanding here to be disclosed. > > Don't we all when it comes to pre-empting > style? I'd be extremely surprised if Marv > didn't explain the "denies 4S" in response > to a question (unless it was already on his > rose cc). > +=+ If the player has this understanding with partner the onus is on him to disclose it, not on the opponent to ask a question. ~ 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 Mar 7 02:56:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26FupH17163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:56:51 +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 g26FufH17129 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:56:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from host213-122-119-40.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([213.122.119.40] helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16idcp-0003TY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:46:43 +0000 Message-ID: <011501c1c525$d16fa020$d6117ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020306080224.00b31830@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:44:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: > >I received a what I consider to be an interesting question. > >Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your > >filled > >out convention card to the table which only says: we play the same > >system as > >you do. We used to do this from time to time. There was a pair that played Roman Club - three-card majors, canape, the works. Whenever I and a particular partner played against them, we made it a point of honour to play Roman Club as well. I have played a session at the club using "the opponents' system", and we scored about 65%. But in my view, it was only a bit of fun - it wasn't legal. We didn't know Roman Club, so when we did anything unnatural, we couldn't comply with the requirements of Law 40. 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 Mar 7 03:13:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26GDHu19853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 03:13:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26GD7H19834 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 03:13:08 +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 RAA18920; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:00:27 +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 RAA29453; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 17:03:09 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020306170301.00a85770@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:07:24 +0100 To: "Olivier Beauvillain" , "Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: Tr: [BLML] disclosure 2 In-Reply-To: <009e01c1c51f$e2dd5a60$884ff9c1@olivier> 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 g26GD9H19837 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:02 6/03/2002 +0100, Olivier Beauvillain wrote: > Hello, > I think you mean they want to play same system as opponents in the other > room, because same system as your opponnents at the table doesn't help! > Say the field play strong NT, if your opponents play weak, if suddenly you > play weak, you just increase the probability of a swing ... > And it can be done only at teams. AG : I think it would be very useful in Swiss teams to play the samez system that's played at the other table. And I can't see why the pair couldn't change their system according to their opponents'. After all, your complete system of defense can vary according to the opponents' system. Say you sit against a pair who plays very sound 1st hand openings, and very light 3rd ones, including say a mini-notrump; It could be good strategy (and if it is not, you may still try it) to open very sound in 2nd hand, to provoke n°3 into unsound openings. This would mean partner would have to open light 4th in hand. You would in fact be playing the opponents' style. 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 Mar 7 03:28:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26GS2A22432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 03:28:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26GRsH22411 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 03:27:54 +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 LAA25878 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:17:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA23398 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:17:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:17:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203061617.LAA23398@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I cannot really remember the details, but the ruling by the TD, even > if wrong, did not sound nearly so obviously wrong the way he described > it. I suppose the facts were different from reported. If the facts were different from the ones reported, it would seem that the problem is not AC's _per se_ but rather making sure the facts are correctly delivered to the AC. I can well believe that is a problem in the ACBL. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 04:20:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26HJU001961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 04:19:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26HJLH01940 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 04:19:22 +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 JAA32019; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 09:09:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200203061709.JAA32019@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 06 Mar 2002 10:19:39 +0100." <008401c1c4f0$0b197f20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 09:09:29 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > ..... > > Surely there is a difference between an inferential meaning and a > > conventional one? If the response to Stayman shows spades, the inference > > is that responder hasn`t got 4 cards in hearts. This is common sense. No > > partnership agreement is necessary, no conventional meaning. A 2H > > response may or may not say something about spades, an agreement may be > > present to the effect that responder denies 4 spades (for example > > because a specialized bid showing both majors is part of the agreed > > system). In this case the need for an alert is evident. There is > > information being passed which is hidden (without an alert) from the > > opponents. > > > > Best regards > > > > Matthias > > Generally correct, but you may be interested to know that for instance > Goren: New Contract Bridge in a Nutshell (issued in the 1960-ies) > dictated that with both majors the correct answer was 2S! > > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has > not always been so. I don't even see it as "common sense". To me, the primary reason for *always* responding 2H with both majors is so that responder can rebid 2S with spades and 2NT with no 4-card major---necessary only if you're playing a system in which 1NT-2NT is conventional. So I've always thought of this agreement as part of a systemic structure, not as "common sense". When playing 1NT-2NT as natural, my practice when responding to Stayman with both majors has always been to bid whichever major I like better. -- 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 Mar 7 04:47:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26Hkxt07461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 04:46:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26HkmH07437 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 04:46:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1338.bb.online.no [80.212.213.58]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA20746; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:36:45 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <007701c1c535$7c7893a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200203061709.JAA32019@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:36:44 +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 From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Generally correct, but you may be interested to know that for instance > > Goren: New Contract Bridge in a Nutshell (issued in the 1960-ies) > > dictated that with both majors the correct answer was 2S! > > > > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has > > not always been so. > > I don't even see it as "common sense". To me, the primary reason for > *always* responding 2H with both majors is so that responder can rebid > 2S with spades and 2NT with no 4-card major---necessary only if you're > playing a system in which 1NT-2NT is conventional. So I've always > thought of this agreement as part of a systemic structure, not as > "common sense". When playing 1NT-2NT as natural, my practice when > responding to Stayman with both majors has always been to bid > whichever major I like better. And "common sense" in Norway dictates that the sequence: 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2S promises 5 spades, while 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2NT promises 4 spades (why ask 2C without 4 cards in at least one major?) reasonable? 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 Mar 7 05:26:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26IPrt14712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:25:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.businetcomm.com ([209.5.151.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26IPhH14682 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:25:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from webmail (unverified [209.5.151.18]) by mail1.businetcomm.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.2.2) with SMTP id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:05:50 -0800 Message-ID: <-1032451457.1015438071359.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:07:51 -0800 (PST) From: mikopera Reply-To: mikopera@nyc.rr.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, svenpran@online.no Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: E-mailanywhere V2.0 (Windows) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am reading from the 1997 Laws of Duplcate Contract Bridge, website http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/. A change for the better, no? >On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:23:15 0100 "Sven Pran" wrote. >From: "Michael Kopera" > >> Law 66A says "either defender may, until he has turned his own card face >> down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be >> faced for his inspection." Notice the word "his", singular. The right >> isn't to demand all cards be turned face up. No problem: I just face my >> card so East, but not West can see it. > >I don't know where you found this text, in my law book it reads: >"So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or >either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the >table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced." > >In the commentaries to the 1987 laws (Law 66 was identical) we find: >"If he does so, all four players at the table will again see all four >cards." > >Personally I think the remark by Alan Gottcheiner to use Law 73C >covers the case perfectly. > >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 Mar 7 05:35:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26IZZp16607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:35:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26IZMH16578 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:35:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16ig6I-000EIL-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:25:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:14:15 +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> <010901c1c064$73d9ca00$84053dd4@b0e7g1> <001901c1c06f$ca2f87e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00b201c1c092$6d3f2ea0$0e053dd4@b0e7g1> <00c001c1c0a0$acee8e20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <004701c1c193$c642bba0$d851e150@dodona> <4fxEVJAGAsg8EwPm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001301c1c50b$19c77a20$ad32e150@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001301c1c50b$19c77a20$ad32e150@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 >From: "David Stevenson" >> Grattan Endicott writes >> >+=+ A 'session' is an extended period of play during >> >which a number of boards, specified by the sponsoring >> >orgaization, is scheduled to be played. The schedule >> >may designate for any one partnership a different >> >number from another partnership; it does not include >> >any number of boards not due to be played. The >> >Director is the agent of the sponsoring organization. >> >> While this is true I do not see what relevance it has >> to whether a player expects to sit out. >> >+=+ Well, I think a player expects to sit out if informed >by the Director that his session will comprise only >a given 24 of the 27 boards in play. Or, to look from the >other side, for each contestant a 'session' comprises >those boards only that are designated for that >contestant to play. Aha, got it. You were referring to a couple of posts back. Anyway, I agree completely. -- 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 Mar 7 05:35:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26IZXM16604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:35:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26IZLH16574 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:35:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16ig6I-000EIM-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 18:25:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:18:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 References: <005e01c1c509$50a2ab20$ad8d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <005e01c1c509$50a2ab20$ad8d8a90@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 >For a bit of fun, a young Sydney pair sometimes used to play the >Chameleon System, which was exactly as you describe. One of >them told me that there were several problems, including: >- Incomplete CCs. It's a bit embarrassing to ask declarer whether >his side gives Normal or Upside Down Count Signals. "Director!!" "Yes, how can I help?" "My opponents do not have their signals marked on their CC." "But aren't you on lead?" -- 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 Mar 7 05:44:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26IiDe18247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:44:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.businetcomm.com ([209.5.151.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26Ii3H18211 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:44:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from webmail (unverified [209.5.151.18]) by mail1.businetcomm.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.2.2) with SMTP id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:26:41 -0800 Message-ID: <-341964178.1015439343265.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:29:03 -0800 (PST) From: mikopera Reply-To: mikopera@nyc.rr.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, svenpran@online.no, mikopera@nyc.rr.com Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: E-mailanywhere V2.0 (Windows) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Oops. I was reading the 1987 Laws--a change for the worse then. The change of wording is incomprehensible unless the reworder specifically wanted to be able to look at the last trick for the benefit of partner. >On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:07:51 -0800 (PST) "mikopera" wrote. >I am reading from the 1997 Laws of Duplcate Contract Bridge, website >http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/. A change for the better, >no? > >>On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:23:15 0100 "Sven Pran" wrote. >>From: "Michael Kopera" >> >>> Law 66A says "either defender may, until he has turned his own card face >>> down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be >>> faced for his inspection." Notice the word "his", singular. The right >>> isn't to demand all cards be turned face up. No problem: I just face my >>> card so East, but not West can see it. >> >>I don't know where you found this text, in my law book it reads: >>"So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or >>either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the >>table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced." >> >>In the commentaries to the 1987 laws (Law 66 was identical) we find: >>"If he does so, all four players at the table will again see all four >>cards." >> >>Personally I think the remark by Alan Gottcheiner to use Law 73C >>covers the case perfectly. >> >>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 Mar 7 05:59:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26IxA920230 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:59:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26IwxH20201 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:59:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3026.bb.online.no [80.212.219.210]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA05611; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:48:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008901c1c53f$90014b60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , References: <-1032451457.1015438071359.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:48:44 +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: "mikopera" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 7:07 PM Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks > I am reading from the 1997 Laws of Duplcate Contract Bridge, website > http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/. A change for the better, > no? I looked up this reference and found: LAW 66 - INSPECTION OF TRICKS A. Current Trick So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced. Sven > > >On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:23:15 0100 "Sven Pran" wrote. > >From: "Michael Kopera" > > > >> Law 66A says "either defender may, until he has turned his own card face > >> down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be > >> faced for his inspection." Notice the word "his", singular. The right > >> isn't to demand all cards be turned face up. No problem: I just face my > >> card so East, but not West can see it. > > > >I don't know where you found this text, in my law book it reads: > >"So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or > >either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the > >table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 06:02:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26J2ab20882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 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 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 g26J2RH20862 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 06:02:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3302.bb.online.no [80.212.220.230]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA21351; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:52:23 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <009101c1c540$0daffa20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , References: <-341964178.1015439343265.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:52:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "mikopera" > Oops. I was reading the 1987 Laws--a change for the worse then. The change > of wording is incomprehensible unless the reworder specifically wanted to be > able to look at the last trick for the benefit of partner. Law 66A is identical in the 1987 and in the 1997 laws. 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 Mar 7 06:24:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26JN8K24777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 06:23:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.businetcomm.com ([209.5.151.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26JMxH24747 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 06:23:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from webmail (unverified [209.5.151.18]) by mail1.businetcomm.com (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.2.2) with SMTP id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:05:36 -0800 Message-ID: <1499073126.1015441678843.JavaMail.SYSTEM@webmail> Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 11:07:58 -0800 (PST) From: mikopera Reply-To: mikopera@nyc.rr.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, svenpran@online.no Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: E-mailanywhere V2.0 (Windows) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws87/ has the words "for his inspection". These words seem to have been dropped in the 1997 Laws. As a player, I would face my card to East only and let him explain why he wanted the card turned face up so that West could also see it. >On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 19:52:23 0100 "Sven Pran" wrote. >From: "mikopera" > >> Oops. I was reading the 1987 Laws--a change for the worse then. The change >> of wording is incomprehensible unless the reworder specifically wanted to >be >> able to look at the last trick for the benefit of partner. > >Law 66A is identical in the 1987 and in the 1997 laws. > >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 Mar 7 06:57:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26Jv9K01731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 06:57:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.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 g26Jv0H01703 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 06:57:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g26Jl1u10327 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:47:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:43:43 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020306144702-r01010800-a62abedf-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 3/5/02 at 3:08 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Sorry, what were you saying? I think I drifted off for a moment. *I* think you must be having a particularly bad day. Maybe you should go have a few beers. 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 Mar 7 07:02:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26K1u402670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:01:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.midtechnologies.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26K1lH02646 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:01:48 +1100 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:55:10 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols Reply-To: mikopera@nyc.rr.com To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" , "'svenpran@online.no '" Subject: RE: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:55:10 -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 The version on the ACBL web site http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/laws97/node9.html#law66 reads LAW 66 INSPECTION OF TRICKS A. Current Trick So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced for his inspection. -----Original Message----- From: mikopera To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; svenpran@online.no; mikopera@nyc.rr.com Sent: 3/6/02 1:29 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Oops. I was reading the 1987 Laws--a change for the worse then. The change of wording is incomprehensible unless the reworder specifically wanted to be able to look at the last trick for the benefit of partner. >On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:07:51 -0800 (PST) "mikopera" wrote. >I am reading from the 1997 Laws of Duplcate Contract Bridge, website >http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/laws97e/. A change for the better, >no? > >>On Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:23:15 0100 "Sven Pran" wrote. >>From: "Michael Kopera" >> >>> Law 66A says "either defender may, until he has turned his own card face >>> down on the table, require that all cards just played to the trick be >>> faced for his inspection." Notice the word "his", singular. The right >>> isn't to demand all cards be turned face up. No problem: I just face my >>> card so East, but not West can see it. >> >>I don't know where you found this text, in my law book it reads: >>"So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or >>either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the >>table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced." >> >>In the commentaries to the 1987 laws (Law 66 was identical) we find: >>"If he does so, all four players at the table will again see all four >>cards." >> >>Personally I think the remark by Alan Gottcheiner to use Law 73C >>covers the case perfectly. >> >>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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 07:26:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26KQAV06878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:26:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26KQ1H06853 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:26:01 +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 g26KG2u17049; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:16:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:55:06 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020306151603-r01010800-7074bfa6-0904-0109@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 3/6/02 at 12:55 AM, john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) wrote: > You *really* don't want to score a Swiss pairs manually! I did it once. > You need to know what an English Swiss Pairs *is* to be able to comment > on this. cheers john And obviously, I don't. :-) Thanks, John. I have to admit I wasn't really thinking in terms of the specific movement, but more generally. Perhaps that's because the club TDs around here don't seem to use any movement that isn't provided by default in ACBLScore. I understand the program has some ability to edit movements, or (I think) provide new movements, but I doubt any of the TDs here know how to do that - or if they do, they just don't want to bother. 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 Mar 7 07:31:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26KUtg07770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:30:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26KUjH07742 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:30:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2043.bb.online.no [80.212.215.251]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA12453; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:20:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:20:29 +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: "John Nichols" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:55 PM Subject: RE: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks > The version on the ACBL web site > http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/laws97/node9.html#law66 > reads > > LAW 66 > INSPECTION OF TRICKS > A. Current Trick > So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, declarer or > either defender may, until he has turned his own card face down on the > table, require that all cards just played to the trick be faced for his > inspection. It does indeed, and I do wonder how such a discrepancy may have sneeked in. After snoozing around a bit I suspect that it is the ACBL version that differs from the official law text, but it might be interesting to have this question settled by some authority. Not that I think it matters much, we shall always have law 73C available in case the question becomes important. 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 Mar 7 07:36:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26Ka7T08726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:36:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g26KZvH08699 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:35:58 +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 g26KQ1S15674 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:26:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000e01c1c54d$1ff3a760$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <002401c1c467$93353d60$339a1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBLLC & C&C meetings Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 12:22:40 -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: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >David Stevenson attended (and participated in) the ACBLLC meeting in Las > >Vegas last fall. I hope that won't be one-time-only. David? > > My current intention is to come to Phoenix in the fall, and I hope to > attend the ACBLLC. I was surprised when attending in Las Vegas to be > told to speak freely if I wished. I do not think I said anything world- > shattering though! > When someone wanted to refer to the Laws, which no one on the LC seemed to have available, your prompt display of the item of interest on the screen of your portable computer was quite impressive. Well done! As one who must remain mute at LC meetings, it was good to know that an active BLMLer could speak to legal matters, although nothing of consequence came up. We have a BLML logo now, but what about a motto? I suggest *Quot homines, tot sententiae*, a phrase from Terence that translates roughly (with PC) as "There are as many opinions as there are people." Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 08:08:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26L8DG14864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:08:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26L83H14832 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:08:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3170.bb.online.no [80.212.220.98]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA05294; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:57:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <017901c1c551$97653620$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ed Reppert" , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020306151603-r01010800-7074bfa6-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 21:57:52 +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: "Ed Reppert" ..... > > You *really* don't want to score a Swiss pairs manually! I did it once. > > You need to know what an English Swiss Pairs *is* to be able to comment > > on this. cheers john > > And obviously, I don't. :-) Thanks, John. The important part of designing a program (of any kind) is not being able to actually do the job manually, but being able to specify how you would do the job manually if you could accomplish it. As such the remark on the legality of manual scoring was indeed relevant, not whether it was legal but if it was possible to specify how to do 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 Thu Mar 7 09:26:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26MPfE28720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:25:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26MPXH28699 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:25:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ijh9-0005v2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:15:35 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020306171107.00b2c9b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:16:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: <014901c1c50f$265b8d40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020306135616.00a86530@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 08:02 AM 3/6/02, Sven wrote: >Only sustaining my impression that what is "common sense", "natural" or >whatever is a matter of where, and which people are involved. I'd think that "common sense" here is primarily a matter of what your agreements are with regard to Stayman. Does partner always have a major? Does partner always have at least one major that's exactly four cards long? Does partner promise any particular strength? Do his allowed major suit holdings depend on his strength (e.g. could be 5+-4 or 4-5+ with less than a game force, but not otherwise). Etc. Common sense says that there is no one common-sense way of replying to Stayman regardless of what partner can have to bid 2C. 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 Mar 7 09:31:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26MVPZ29373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:31:25 +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 g26MVGH29354 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:31:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ijmh-0006ve-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:21:19 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020306171912.00b30aa0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 17:22:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) 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 09:36 AM 3/6/02, twm wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: > > > Instead of SOs regulating "conventions", the next Laws should let SOs > > regulate "partnership agreements". > >Please god no! If we give SOs the power to forbid weak(strong) NT or 4 >card major openings, or to set minimum point requirements for 3/4 level >pre-empts then some will undoubtedly do so. The freedom to bid naturally >is the one right enshrined in the laws that should never be changed. Amen to that, brother. If the laws were so changed, we'd be only a couple of months away from an ACBL in which all players in all but a very few high-level events were required to use SAYC with no deviations permitted, or some similar abomination. 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 Mar 7 09:45:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g26MipA01158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:44:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g26MigH01143 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:44:43 +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 g26MYjS04589; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:34:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002c01c1c55f$1c36c140$339a1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200203060145.RAA23898@mailhub.irvine.com> <000c01c1c4b7$7eae5ca0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <000601c1c4ea$472ce340$9228e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 14:33:51 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > Not really off-topic. Disclosure includes Alerts. The ACBL > > requires that most conventions be Alerted, so determining > > what constitutes a convention becomes important. > > > +=+ Special partnership agreements must be fully and freely > available to opponents. A player need not disclose inferences > drawn from his general knowledge and experience. A player > may not make a call or play based on a special partnership > agreement unless an opposing pair may be expected toMarv Marvin L. French San Diego, California > understand its meaning. If they should not be expected to > understand its meaning without it, his side may only use > the call if they disclose it in accordance with the > regulations. > So what your opponents will know about your call as a > matter of general (available to all) bridge knowledge may be > used without disclosure; as a matter of law other agreements, > explicit or implicit must be disclosed. If you are not > required to alert them your only route to disclosure is to > show them on your convention card. The SO does not have > the power to say they need not be disclosed. If a bid > specifically denies or specifies a holding in an unnamed > suit - and it is not general bridge knowledge that this will > be so - the laws demand disclosure. Otherwise you are > using a concealed partnership understanding and that > should get you hung, drawn and quartered. > No one disgrees with all that, I'm sure. However, the Laws say that disclosure must be made in accordance with the methods dictated by SOs. The ACBL has a prescribed convention card, pre-Alerts, Alerts, Announcements, and Post-Alerts. Moreover, we are asked to freely volunteer anything not disclosed by those methods. Declarer/dummy does this before the opening lead is made, defenders after play is complete. There are holes in this approach, but that's what we are given. Instructions for filling out the convention card do not include much more than the bare bones of understandings, not the subtleties (for which there isn't room). Some low-level agtreeements should be known during the auction, not after it, and some defensive low-level agreements should be known before play, not after it. I think perhaps the ACBL is not living up to its obligations in regard to disclosure requirements, but it's hard to see how they can do better. Permitting players to send partenr away from the table would be a step in the right direction, permitting disclosures at the right time. We used to do that in the 50s and 60s, but are now told not to do it.. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California Off to Houston tomorrow -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 11:29:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g270SwY18219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:28:58 +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 g270SmH18188 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:28:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2780.bb.online.no [80.212.218.220]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA19791 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:18:46 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001101c1c56d$a59fb960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020306135616.00a86530@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020306171107.00b2c9b0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 01:18:45 +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: "Eric Landau" > >Only sustaining my impression that what is "common sense", "natural" or > >whatever is a matter of where, and which people are involved. > > I'd think that "common sense" here is primarily a matter of what your > agreements are with regard to Stayman. Does partner always have a > major? Does partner always have at least one major that's exactly four > cards long? Does partner promise any particular strength? Do his > allowed major suit holdings depend on his strength (e.g. could be 5+-4 > or 4-5+ with less than a game force, but not otherwise). Etc. Common > sense says that there is no one common-sense way of replying to Stayman > regardless of what partner can have to bid 2C. You make my point precisely! So when disclosing partnership agreements there is nothing you can omit unless you know exactly what is "common sense" in this particular club (or event). 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 Mar 7 12:21:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g271LN227455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:21:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g271LFH27433 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:21:15 +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 MAA02897 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:23:26 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:09:37 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:05:08 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/03/2002 12:09:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: [snip] >For a bit of fun, a young Sydney pair sometimes used to play the >Chameleon System, which was exactly as you describe. One of >them told me that there were several problems, including: > >- Doubt about the legality of referring to the opponents' (= our own) >CCs. >- Having to wait to start play while the opponents called the Director. >I think they tried to minimise this by playing Standard against some >(usually older) pairs. >- Incomplete CCs. It's a bit embarrassing to ask declarer whether >his side gives Normal or Upside Down Count Signals. >- Difficulty using Relay Systems and the like. [snip] In Australia, Forcing Pass systems are permitted in some major events. However, a Forcing Pass pair must submit a comprehensive set of system notes in advance. Furthermore, the opponents are permitted to refer to a written anti-Forcing Pass defence at the table. So some pairs, who in other matches play a natural system, use their opponents' Forcing Pass system as their written defence! 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 Mar 7 12:31:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g271V6u28694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:31:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g271UvH28663 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:30:57 +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 MAA04454 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:33:05 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:19:15 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:14:43 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 07/03/2002 12:19:31 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >At 09:36 AM 3/6/02, twm wrote: > >>Richard Hills wrote: >> >> > Instead of SOs regulating "conventions", the next Laws should let SOs >> > regulate "partnership agreements". >> >>Please god no! If we give SOs the power to forbid weak(strong) NT or 4 >>card major openings, or to set minimum point requirements for 3/4 level >>pre-empts then some will undoubtedly do so. The freedom to bid naturally >>is the one right enshrined in the laws that should never be changed. > >Amen to that, brother. If the laws were so changed, we'd be only a >couple of months away from an ACBL in which all players in all but a >very few high-level events were required to use SAYC with no deviations >permitted, or some similar abomination. > > >Eric Landau I do not think the sky will fall. The current theoretical bar preventing SOs regulating natural bids, has not prevented the ACBL barring the 9 hcp 1NT for all practical purposes. Similarly, if the ACBL wants SAYC to be compulsory, that is possible to arrange by using the ACBL's existing powers. 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 Mar 7 13:17:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g272HF507348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:17:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g272H4H07311 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:17:05 +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 g262NOo02879 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 02:23:24 GMT Message-ID: <84l0QcBHssh8EwFP@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:05:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Scoring Problem References: <00d601c1c374$12e673c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000f01c1c3c8$25509c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001501c1c426$dc2b2160$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000d01c1c4e0$bc922fa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000d01c1c4e0$bc922fa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000d01c1c4e0$bc922fa0$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >I am talking Swiss PAIRS. > >Your question of calculating VP makes me believe >you are talking Swiss teams? > >Sven EBU Swiss Pairs is scored by VPs. about 67% over 8 boards gets you a 20-0. > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 13:26:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g272QaM09023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:26:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g272QRH09003 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:26:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g262Wlo02907 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 02:32:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:15:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020306080224.00b31830@pop.starpower.net> <011501c1c525$d16fa020$d6117ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <011501c1c525$d16fa020$d6117ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <011501c1c525$d16fa020$d6117ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Ton wrote: > >> >I received a what I consider to be an interesting question. >> >Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your >> >filled >> >out convention card to the table which only says: we play the same >> >system as >> >you do. > >We used to do this from time to time. There was a pair that played Roman >Club - three-card majors, canape, the works. Whenever I and a particular >partner played against them, we made it a point of honour to play Roman >Club as well. I have played a session at the club using "the opponents' >system", and we scored about 65%. > >But in my view, it was only a bit of fun - it wasn't legal. We didn't >know Roman Club, so when we did anything unnatural, we couldn't comply >with the requirements of Law 40. > I recall you tended to play it on Friday nights when pretty much anything goes anyway - I *do* remember you asking Peter Burrows what your partner's reply to a particularly Ely-esque sequence meant, and being called to the table to rule on it. 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 Thu Mar 7 13:28:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g272SbP09279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:28:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g272SRH09254 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:28:28 +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 g262Ylo02912 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2002 02:34:47 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 02:17:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks References: <008c01c1c4f2$53cda3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <008c01c1c4f2$53cda3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <008c01c1c4f2$53cda3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >South is declarer, a trick has been completed >and everybody except East have turned their >cards face down when West asks if he may >see the cards. I get summoned to the table: > >I explained law 66A and included that I would not >be too happy if East, on learning that his partner >was interested in seeing the cards, excercised >his right to demand all cards turned face up >(not for his own, but for his partner's interest). > >There was no problem, East turned his card >face down and play continued. > >But how does this group look at such a case? > UI to East, and an adjustment is in order if East so demands. cheers john >Sven > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 16:16:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g275FkK08076 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:15:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g275FbH08058 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:15:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 14318 invoked by uid 504); 7 Mar 2002 04:56:11 -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 1.245973 secs); 07 Mar 2002 04:56:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.216) by 0 with SMTP; 7 Mar 2002 04:56:09 -0000 Message-ID: <01bf01c1c595$64586c40$e216b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:02:57 +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: To: Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > >At 09:36 AM 3/6/02, twm wrote: > > > >>Richard Hills wrote: > >> > >> > Instead of SOs regulating "conventions", the next Laws should let SOs > >> > regulate "partnership agreements". > >> > >>Please god no! If we give SOs the power to forbid weak(strong) NT or 4 > >>card major openings, or to set minimum point requirements for 3/4 level > >>pre-empts then some will undoubtedly do so. The freedom to bid naturally > >>is the one right enshrined in the laws that should never be changed. > > > >Amen to that, brother. If the laws were so changed, we'd be only a > >couple of months away from an ACBL in which all players in all but a > >very few high-level events were required to use SAYC with no deviations > >permitted, or some similar abomination. > > > > > >Eric Landau > > I do not think the sky will fall. The current theoretical bar preventing > SOs regulating natural bids, has not prevented the ACBL barring the 9 hcp > 1NT for all practical purposes. > > Similarly, if the ACBL wants SAYC to be compulsory, that is possible to > arrange by using the ACBL's existing powers. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 18:47:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g277kPn07394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:46:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g277kGH07363 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:46:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.12.60] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16isRe-0004zC-00; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 07:36:11 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sven Pran" , , References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:37:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:20 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks > From: "John Nichols" > To: ; > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 8:55 PM > Subject: RE: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks > > > > The version on the ACBL web site > > http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/laws97/node9.html#law66 > > reads > > > > LAW 66 > > INSPECTION OF TRICKS > > A. Current Trick > > So long as his side has not led or played to the next trick, > > declarer or either defender may, until he has turned his > > own card face down on the table, require that all cards > > just played to the trick be faced for his inspection. > > It does indeed, and I do wonder how such a discrepancy > may have sneeked in. After snoozing around a bit I suspect > that it is the ACBL version that differs from the official law > text, but it might be interesting to have this question > settled by some authority. > > Not that I think it matters much, we shall always have > law 73C available in case the question becomes important. > +=+ I confirm that the official Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 do not include the words "for his inspection". Inclusion of these words would appear to be an error in translation from the English. No change was made in Law 66A from the 1987 Code to the 1997 Code. It was always envisaged that all four players should see whatever the enquirer saw, and that he should not have the benefit of information exclusive to himself. The above reference to Law 73C is questionable. It has been ruled that to ask a question in order to communicate to partner the contents of the answer is unlawful, but there is no WBF guidance to now whether this principle should extend to Law 66A, which would change the earlier attitude. There is, be it noted, a nuance of difference between a player 'requesting' an explanation and a requirement that cards be 'faced'. For now the information is AI to all four players. ~ 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 Mar 7 19:07:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2787Rf11282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:07:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2787GH11243 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:07:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.9.254] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16ism0-0007i7-00; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 07:57:13 +0000 Message-ID: <004401c1c5ae$273ee820$3c0ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , References: <01bf01c1c595$64586c40$e216b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 07:59:36 -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, March 07, 2002 5:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:14 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > > I do not think the sky will fall. The current theoretical > > bar preventing SOs regulating natural bids, has not > > prevented the ACBL barring the 9 hcp 1NT for all > > practical purposes. > > > > Similarly, if the ACBL wants SAYC to be compulsory, > > that is possible to arrange by using the ACBL's > > existing powers. > > > > Best wishes > > > > Richard > > +=+ I take the view that it has been shown to be unrealistic to attempt to bind the hands of SOs [ZAs, NBOs] in this area and that we should concede them the powers. Such a draft will be on the table for the drafting subcommittee. I see it as especially desirable not to have a body like the ACBL needing to contort itself to do what it thinks 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 Thu Mar 7 19:47:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g278ksn18356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:46:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g278kiH18326 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:46:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16itOC-0004z1-04; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:36:40 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.55.230]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16itNx-2Kpp7QC; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:36:25 +0100 Message-ID: <3C872686.A719FCBC@t-online.de> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:36:22 +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: David Stevenson , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <001701c1c478$2a91c380$162de150@dodona> <001001c1c48e$1aaf9800$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <002501c1c49d$f999cb80$d750e150@dodona> <006c01c1c4ab$a9e20c20$e216b9d2@laptop> <3C85D752.BB0A42CC@t-online.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson schrieb: > > Matthias Berghaus writes > > >Surely there is a difference between an inferential meaning and a > >conventional one? If the response to Stayman shows spades, the inference > >is that responder hasn`t got 4 cards in hearts. This is common sense. No > >partnership agreement is necessary, no conventional meaning. > > This shows exactly the problems that abound with a lack of Full > Disclosure: people then make deductions that are different from those > other pairs would make. > > With most of my partners a response showing spades does not deny > hearts. It is not a matter of common sense at all: it is a matter of > agreement. You may think that a player with both majors will respond > hearts, as I do by agreement with a couple of partners, but that is not > true for many pairs. Hmmm. Interesting. I thought I had picked a sequence handled the same way everywhere. In fact I never met someone in Germany who played it your way. This should show me to keep an open mind. Do you alert 1NT-2C-2S ? Or do players in England expect 2S with both majors? Come to think of it, "alertable" seems to be a matter not only of regulations, but sometimes of "local customs", since every regulation I know (which aren`t THAT many, anyway) mentions something along the lines of "unexpected". Maybe your sequence and it`s inferential meaning isn`t unexpected in your area. Here it would be exotic. I`m not sure where that leaves us. Is there any sequence except 1NT - 7NT and some of this kind which has no "hidden" meaning, even if this is because you`re not used to it? Since this thread is about disclosure: a recurring problem with disclosure is the fact (demonstrated above) that people take some things in bridge for granted. Often enough it is right to do so, for eyample when you play against people from your club and "everyone plays this". Then again we may meet at the table and find out the hard way that some people do it differently. In my opinion most (but surely not all) problems with disclosure stem from these "should be clear to everyone" situations which aren`t, as we have just seen. Best regards Matthias > > -- > 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 Mar 7 19:58:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g278wPs20664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:58:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g278wGH20645 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:58:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2314.bb.online.no [80.212.217.10]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA20179 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:48:01 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002d01c1c5b4$ca3f0f40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@dodona> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:48:00 +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 confirm that the official Laws of Duplicate Contract > Bridge 1997 do not include the words "for his inspection". > Inclusion of these words would appear to be an error in > translation from the English. No change was made in Law > 66A from the 1987 Code to the 1997 Code. It was always > envisaged that all four players should see whatever the > enquirer saw, and that he should not have the benefit of > information exclusive to himself. > The above reference to Law 73C is questionable. It > has been ruled that to ask a question in order to > communicate to partner the contents of the answer is > unlawful, but there is no WBF guidance to now whether > this principle should extend to Law 66A, which would > change the earlier attitude. There is, be it noted, a > nuance of difference between a player 'requesting' an > explanation and a requirement that cards be 'faced'. > For now the information is AI to all four players. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thank you for this clarification. As already stated I consider this a minor question, but maybe one that deserves one minute of the law committee's time when discussing the next version of the laws? I have the impression of a consensus here that East should not legally be able to "help" his partner as illustrated in my original post? 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 Mar 7 19:59:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g278x1Z20764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:59:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com (mailout01.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g278wqH20745 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:58:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout01.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16itZv-0003yu-03; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:48:47 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.49.134]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16itZf-1wXTCiC; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 09:48:31 +0100 Message-ID: <3C87295C.1151AA59@t-online.de> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 09:48:28 +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: Sven Pran , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <200203061709.JAA32019@mailhub.irvine.com> <007701c1c535$7c7893a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran schrieb: > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > Generally correct, but you may be interested to know that for instance > > > Goren: New Contract Bridge in a Nutshell (issued in the 1960-ies) > > > dictated that with both majors the correct answer was 2S! > > > > > > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has > > > not always been so. > > > > I don't even see it as "common sense". To me, the primary reason for > > *always* responding 2H with both majors is so that responder can rebid > > 2S with spades and 2NT with no 4-card major---necessary only if you're > > playing a system in which 1NT-2NT is conventional. So I've always > > thought of this agreement as part of a systemic structure, not as > > "common sense". When playing 1NT-2NT as natural, my practice when > > responding to Stayman with both majors has always been to bid > > whichever major I like better. > > And "common sense" in Norway dictates that the sequence: > > 1NT - 2C - > 2H - 2S > > promises 5 spades, while > > 1NT - 2C - > 2H - 2NT > > promises 4 spades (why ask 2C without 4 cards in at least one major?) > > reasonable? > > Sven > Yesterday I didn`t believe there are so many differnet Stayman approaches, but come to think of it in my "bridge-youth" (yes, I cam still remember :-) ) I used to play that 1NT - 2C - 2H - 2S showed 5 spades AND 3 HEARTS, in case opener has 5 of them, transfer being for hands without 3 hearts. And I thought Stayman was an easy example..... Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 21:43:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27Ah5m29009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:43:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27AgvH29005 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:42:57 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20245 invoked by uid 504); 7 Mar 2002 10:23:29 -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 1.56342 secs); 07 Mar 2002 10:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.141) by 0 with SMTP; 7 Mar 2002 10:23:27 -0000 Message-ID: <002401c1c5c3$1db3c5e0$8d16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <01bf01c1c595$64586c40$e216b9d2@laptop> <004401c1c5ae$273ee820$3c0ce150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:30:32 +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: Wayne Burrows ; Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "More should I question thee, and more I must, > Though more to know could not be more to trust." > ~ 'All's Well that Ends Well' > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 5:02 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:14 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > > > > I do not think the sky will fall. The current theoretical > > > bar preventing SOs regulating natural bids, has not > > > prevented the ACBL barring the 9 hcp 1NT for all > > > practical purposes. > > > > > > Similarly, if the ACBL wants SAYC to be compulsory, > > > that is possible to arrange by using the ACBL's > > > existing powers. > > > > > > Best wishes > > > > > > Richard > > > > +=+ I take the view that it has been shown > to be unrealistic to attempt to bind the > hands of SOs [ZAs, NBOs] in this area and > that we should concede them the powers. > Such a draft will be on the table for the > drafting subcommittee. I see it as especially > desirable not to have a body like the ACBL > needing to contort itself to do what it > thinks right. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Of course it is unrealistic when the WBF bend over backwards to grant SO powers of regulation that any plain reading of the laws would disallow. I take the view that every regulation preventing a pair playing some system or other takes away from rather than adds to our game. 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 Mar 7 22:52:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27BooF06034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:50:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27BofH06000 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 22:50:41 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g27Begp10572 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:40:42 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:40 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: 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: <001701c1c525$84133e40$5c0ee150@pacific> Grattan wrote: > > > in any case, you have a partnership > > > understanding here to be disclosed. > > > > Don't we all when it comes to pre-empting > > style? I'd be extremely surprised if Marv > > didn't explain the "denies 4S" in response > > to a question (unless it was already on his > > cc). > > > +=+ If the player has this understanding with > partner the onus is on him to disclose it, not > on the opponent to ask a question. ~ G ~ +=+ I sometimes wonder if I am playing bridge on a different planet from everyone else. I have played a fair amount of bridge against experienced pairs and I can hardly ever remember seeing either "May have outside 4 card major" or "Denies outside 4 card major" on the definition of pre-empts. (Both of these are fairly common agreements surely). Can anyone here really say that the CCs they have seen (or their own) even begin to describe e.g. the subtleties of suit quality that players use to make choices between calls? Does anyone here believe that an experienced partnership doesn't develop such understandings? Would anyone wish to even try and document all the nuances of understanding they have developed with frequent partners? For me that would be the work of days, just so I could play in an EBU competition with my wife - it's not worth the effort and I don't believe for a moment that anyone else will bother either. What on earth is wrong with a disclosure framework that runs. 1. Pre-alert: Stuff the SO thinks is special/necessary to draw attention to in advance 2. CC: Basic structure of system, opening bids, responses and conventions 3. Alerts: Stuff the SO wants drawn to the attention of opps as it arises 4. Answers to questions: An elaboration on the basic meaning with all primary inferences. 5. Answers to follow up questions: Secondary/contextual inferences and arcane details not covered by 4. Obviously the SO can decide exactly what needs to go into each category and communicate that to the players. And in this area I really do think the SO is better positioned than the WBF to make such determinations. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 7 23:04:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27C4Xr08541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:04:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27C4NH08504 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:04:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id MAA19120; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:52:56 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA04690; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:53:48 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020307125132.00a8cbf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:58:03 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Cc: In-Reply-To: <002c01c1c55f$1c36c140$339a1e18@san.rr.com> References: <200203060145.RAA23898@mailhub.irvine.com> <000c01c1c4b7$7eae5ca0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <000601c1c4ea$472ce340$9228e150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:33 6/03/2002 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >I think perhaps the ACBL is not living up to its obligations in regard >to disclosure requirements, but it's hard to see how they can do better. >Permitting players to send partenr away from the table would be a step >in the right direction, permitting disclosures at the right time. We >used to do that in the 50s and 60s, but are now told not to do it.. AG : this principle is very nice, but one should realize that the mere fact of sending partner away creates UI. Thus, it isn't useful, for example, when coping with MI cases that you'd like to correct. One case where that attitude would be very useful is when partner doesn't know what my bid means. Then I could send him off and explain myurself. You could also write down the correct explanation, and show it to both opponents in turn, which seems easier. One could however, imagine cases where sending partner off would be the easiest way to cope with some specific problem. I suppose the TD could use one's discretionary powers to accept the player's suggestion when one sees it fit. Best regards, Alain. >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California >Off to Houston tomorrow > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 7 23:10:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27CAKp09648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:10:20 +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 g27CAAH09622 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:10:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g27C0Bd25263 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:00:11 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:00 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: 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: <004401c1c5ae$273ee820$3c0ce150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > +=+ I take the view that it has been shown > to be unrealistic to attempt to bind the > hands of SOs [ZAs, NBOs] in this area and > that we should concede them the powers. > Such a draft will be on the table for the > drafting subcommittee. I see it as especially > desirable not to have a body like the ACBL > needing to contort itself to do what it > thinks right. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Perhaps I misunderstand but surely one key purpose of supranational bodies (whether the WBFLC, WTO, the European Court, International Court of Human Rights or whatever) is to set central standards which require a degree of compliance (preferably) or contortion (all too often) from the member bodies. 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 Mar 7 23:13:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27CD5v10092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:13:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27CCqH10059 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:12:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iwbk-000Oqk-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:02:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:43:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions References: <200203061617.LAA23398@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200203061617.LAA23398@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 >> I cannot really remember the details, but the ruling by the TD, even >> if wrong, did not sound nearly so obviously wrong the way he described >> it. I suppose the facts were different from reported. > >If the facts were different from the ones reported, it would seem that >the problem is not AC's _per se_ but rather making sure the facts are >correctly delivered to the AC. I can well believe that is a problem in >the ACBL. No, you are making assumptions for which there is no evidence. I merely said the TD did not seem to be so wrong, based on what he said. But the AC might have got the right facts, and his facts 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 Thu Mar 7 23:13:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27CD5u10094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:13:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27CCqH10058 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:12:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16iwbk-000Oql-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:02:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 18:45:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <200203061709.JAA32019@mailhub.irvine.com> <007701c1c535$7c7893a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <007701c1c535$7c7893a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: "Adam Beneschan" >> > Generally correct, but you may be interested to know that for instance >> > Goren: New Contract Bridge in a Nutshell (issued in the 1960-ies) >> > dictated that with both majors the correct answer was 2S! >> > >> > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has >> > not always been so. >> >> I don't even see it as "common sense". To me, the primary reason for >> *always* responding 2H with both majors is so that responder can rebid >> 2S with spades and 2NT with no 4-card major---necessary only if you're >> playing a system in which 1NT-2NT is conventional. So I've always >> thought of this agreement as part of a systemic structure, not as >> "common sense". When playing 1NT-2NT as natural, my practice when >> responding to Stayman with both majors has always been to bid >> whichever major I like better. > >And "common sense" in Norway dictates that the sequence: > >1NT - 2C - >2H - 2S > >promises 5 spades, while > >1NT - 2C - >2H - 2NT > >promises 4 spades (why ask 2C without 4 cards in at least one major?) How else do you raise to 2NT? >reasonable? No, it is a matter of agreement again. There are so many different response structures to 1NT. -- 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 Mar 7 23:51:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27CpBv10154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:51:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net (smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net [212.135.6.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27Cp3H10150 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 23:51:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from tnt-14-88.easynet.co.uk ([212.134.24.88] helo=k6b8p4) by smarthost1.mail.uk.easynet.net with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16ixCh-000Cqt-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 12:41:04 +0000 From: "Brambledown" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:36:56 -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) In-Reply-To: <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@dodona> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott writes: > +=+ I confirm that the official Laws of Duplicate Contract > Bridge 1997 do not include the words "for his inspection". > Inclusion of these words would appear to be an error in > translation from the English. No change was made in Law > 66A from the 1987 Code to the 1997 Code. Agreed, but the words "... for his inspection" *do* appear in the 1975 Laws, so it would not appear to be just a question of translation. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 00:14:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27DDcP10178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:13:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27DDUH10174 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:13:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ixYR-0004SP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 08:03:31 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020307075715.00b349c0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 08:04:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: <001101c1c56d$a59fb960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020306135616.00a86530@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.0.20020306171107.00b2c9b0@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 07:18 PM 3/6/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > >Only sustaining my impression that what is "common sense", > "natural" or > > >whatever is a matter of where, and which people are involved. > > > > I'd think that "common sense" here is primarily a matter of what your > > agreements are with regard to Stayman. Does partner always have a > > major? Does partner always have at least one major that's exactly > four > > cards long? Does partner promise any particular strength? Do his > > allowed major suit holdings depend on his strength (e.g. could be 5+-4 > > or 4-5+ with less than a game force, but not otherwise). Etc. Common > > sense says that there is no one common-sense way of replying to > Stayman > > regardless of what partner can have to bid 2C. > >You make my point precisely! > >So when disclosing partnership agreements there is nothing you can omit >unless you know exactly what is "common sense" in this particular club >(or event). I'd have said "conceal" rather than "omit". If opponents ask, you must reveal; even if you're of the school that believes they have the right to refuse to disclose "general knowledge and experience" when questioned (I'm not, BTW), you can't hide behind it here. But I don't think you have to "volunteer" an explanation (i.e. alert) of 2H (denying 4S) or 2S (denying 4H). And Sven makes the case that it makes little sense to require one but not the other. IOW, when common sense says that it there is more than one common-sense meaning of a particular call, common sense says that you should ask. We will never devise an alert system that will eliminate the need for questioning. 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 Mar 8 00:21:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27DLX710194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:21:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27DLPH10190 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:21:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ixg7-0005lH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 08:11:27 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020307080539.00b329f0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 08:12:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) 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 09:14 PM 3/6/02, richard wrote: > >Amen to that, brother. If the laws were so changed, we'd be only a > >couple of months away from an ACBL in which all players in all but a > >very few high-level events were required to use SAYC with no deviations > >permitted, or some similar abomination. > >I do not think the sky will fall. The current theoretical bar preventing >SOs regulating natural bids, has not prevented the ACBL barring the 9 hcp >1NT for all practical purposes. Fortunately, though, it has resulted in their taking a fair amount of abuse for doing so, which, IMO, has been largely responsible for keeping them from trying similar gimmicks elsewhere. >Similarly, if the ACBL wants SAYC to be compulsory, that is possible to >arrange by using the ACBL's existing powers. Perhaps they know that if they did that, the sky really would fall. But I fear they would think otherwise if it were obviously legal rather than legally justifiable only on an obvious technical fine point of interpretation, and the objections of their players could be dismissed out of hand rather than having to be repeatedly defended (in the Bulletin and elsewhere). 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 Mar 8 00:27:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27DR2p10209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:27:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27DQtH10205 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:26:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ixlR-0006dN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 08:16:57 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020307081444.00b30880@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 08:18:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: <004401c1c5ae$273ee820$3c0ce150@dodona> References: <01bf01c1c595$64586c40$e216b9d2@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 02:59 AM 3/7/02, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I take the view that it has been shown >to be unrealistic to attempt to bind the >hands of SOs [ZAs, NBOs] in this area and >that we should concede them the powers. >Such a draft will be on the table for the >drafting subcommittee. I see it as especially >desirable not to have a body like the ACBL >needing to contort itself to do what it >thinks right. I see it as either desirable or not, depending on whether or not one believes that "what it thinks right" 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 01:02:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27E1iM10236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 01:01:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27E1ZH10232 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 01:01:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with SMTP id FAA01206 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 05:51:11 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge" Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 08:47:05 -0800 Message-ID: <012901c1c5f7$b6a44f20$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 Landua wrote: >IOW, when common sense says that it there is more >than one common-sense meaning of a particular call, >common sense says that you should ask. We will never >devise an alert system that will eliminate the need >for questioning. I have long advocated that the unique nature of the online playing environment will necessitate a series of changes to the Laws of Bridge. The most obviously examples of these changes are software implementations that eliminate the possibility for many mechanical errors such as revokes or leads out of turn. New laws may need to be introduced to deal brand new classes of mechanical errors such as misclicks. My greatest interest has always been the possibility of using "mechanizing" aids to automate different aspects of information exchange. It is already possible to implement software applications that will associate a hypertext string with a given bidding sequence. The hypertext string can be used to provide the opposing pair with a concise explanation of each bid during an auction. Audible alert messages [or colored text] can be used to indicate bids that deserve "special" attention. Hypertext links can be used to provide shortcuts to the appropriate section of a pair's system notes. I believe that this type of implementation provides the best solution for handling issues relating to full disclosure. I have debated this issue on this mailing list on many occasions in the past. The reason that I a posting this information [yet again] is that the first of this class of commercial tools is starting to make its way to market. Roy Kerr has released a commercial software application titled Bridge2Symmetric. Bridge2Symmetric is a software toolkit that allows players to create bidding templates that define a bidding system. The toolkit is primarily designed to allow players to program a "partner" that can be used to practice specific bidding sequences. [As the name suggests, the application is optimized for players who are using methods based on Symmetric Relay]. However, this type of application could be easily modified for the purpose of information exchange. I am firmly convinced that this is not a matter of "why" or "if", but rather "when". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 02:11:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27FAkW10307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 02:10:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27FAcH10303 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 02:10:39 +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 KAA19574 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:00:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA01712 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:00:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 10:00:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203071500.KAA01712@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I confirm that the official Laws of Duplicate Contract > Bridge 1997 do not include the words "for his inspection". I have just checked the ACBL's printed editions. Those final three words of L66A were included in 1975 but dropped in 1987. As Grattan said, there was no change from 1987 to 1997. On the broader question, I am happy with 73C. If a defender spontaneously requests that the cards be faced, and that happens to help his partner (or declarer!), so be it. But the situation is different after partner reveals, by mannerism or remark, that he has a problem. If applying L73C here is not considered desirable, a simple fix in the next Laws would be to get rid of the "turned his card down" part. Then anyone could see the previous trick until his side had played to the next trick. Or alternatively, make the time limit for defenders when _both_ have turned their cards face 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 Fri Mar 8 02:34:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27FYNe10328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 02:34:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04bw.bigpond.com (mta04bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27FYGH10324 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 02:34:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.84]) by mta04bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GSM04E00.JSH for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 01:24:14 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.214 ([144.138.141.214]) by bwmam06.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 47/189863); 08 Mar 2002 01:24:09 Message-ID: <009501c1c5ec$207cfb60$d68d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 02:23:57 +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 Chas Fellows wrote: > Grattan Endicott writes: >> +=+ I confirm that the official Laws of Duplicate Contract >> Bridge 1997 do not include the words "for his inspection". >> Inclusion of these words would appear to be an error in >> translation from the English. No change was made in Law >> 66A from the 1987 Code to the 1997 Code. > >Agreed, but the words "... for his inspection" *do* appear in the 1975 >Laws, and the three words also appear in the 1963 Laws, so they appear in the 1997 copy on the ACBL Website, in the 1975 Laws and in the 1963 Laws. 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 Fri Mar 8 02:59:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27Fx9d10348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 02:59:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27Fx0H10344 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 02:59:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d257.iae.nl [212.61.5.3]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id CE7582105D for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:48:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <010901c1c5ef$6c4b14c0$4d033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Cards misplaced by dummy Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:47:12 +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 Why did not east react earlier? It seems that Law72B4 only refers to the offending side. See also Law7D. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 8:17 PM Subject: [BLML] Cards misplaced by dummy > Hi BLMLrs, > > When spreading his cards, dummy put H2 in the Diamond row > so that dummy seems to have only 2 small cards in H. > > After a H opening lead by West, the declarer in South, > playing 4S, played HA and HK and a third small H. W ruff > with SQ, dummy overruff with SK... and then East called > the TD: "look at this H2...". > > Ruling: North, as dummy, had first made an infraction > according to Law 41D ("sorted into suits"). > Dummy has to play H2 at the current trick. > West can put his DS in hand without penalty and play > any legal card (he may discard). (47 D ?? ) > East takes the current trick with HQ. > DS in W's hand is UI to declarer. > > This ruling seems correct according to "equity". > Not so clear according to Laws. > Law 47D reads "After an opponent's change of play". > Does this apply to cards played before the infraction > or only after? > Please comment. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 03:29:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27GTSf13904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 03:29:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g27GTGH13872 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 03:29:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.73.148] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16j0bp-000L2k-00; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:19:13 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01c1c5f3$b8677fc0$a92fe150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:06:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 07 March 2002 12:00 Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > In-Reply-To: <004401c1c5ae$273ee820$3c0ce150@dodona> > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ I take the view that it has been shown > > to be unrealistic to attempt to bind the > > hands of SOs [ZAs, NBOs] in this area and > > that we should concede them the powers. > > Such a draft will be on the table for the > > drafting subcommittee. I see it as especially > > desirable not to have a body like the ACBL > > needing to contort itself to do what it > > thinks right. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Perhaps I misunderstand but surely one key > purpose of supranational bodies (whether the > WBFLC, WTO, the European Court, > International Court of Human Rights or whatever) > is to set central standards which require a > degree of compliance (preferably) or contortion > (all too often) from the member bodies. > > Tim > +=+ I think you do misunderstand, not in relation to 'key purpose' but in relation to 'central standards'. Compliance with given standards does not imply uniform procedures. The standards of 'democracy' encompass apparently the procedures in the USA with their fierce defence of 'rights', the open fora of Ancient Rome and Greece, and the British method of electing a dictator for a five year term and giving him power to return to the people sooner if he finds they have not given him sufficient power, but not later. My objective is to set principle in the Laws but to concede wide powers of regulation under the Laws for achievement of the principle as the territorial body deems appropriate. ~ 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 Mar 8 03:29:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27GTU113908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 03:29:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g27GTIH13878 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 03:29:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.73.148] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16j0bq-000L2k-00; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 16:19:15 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01c1c5f3$b96ae600$a92fe150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <009501c1c5ec$207cfb60$d68d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:15:05 -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: 07 March 2002 15:23 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks > Chas Fellows wrote: > > Grattan Endicott writes: > >> +=+ I confirm that the official Laws of > >> Duplicate Contract Bridge 1997 do not > >> include the words "for his inspection". > >> Inclusion of these words would appear > >> to be an error in translation from the > >> English. No change was made in Law > >> 66A from the 1987 Code to the 1997 > >>Code. > > > >Agreed, but the words "... for his inspection" > >*do* appear in the 1975 Laws, > > and the three words also appear in the 1963 > Laws, so they appear in the 1997 copy on the > ACBL Website, in the 1975 Laws and in the > 1963 Laws. > > Peter Gill. > +=+ So ? I am unclear as to what you are saying here. The 1997 Laws are the current version; in 1987 there was a change and it continues now as in 1987. At this time those words are not part of the Laws. As with the Laws of Hammurabi, the 1963 and 1975 Laws are history. ~ 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 Mar 8 03:50:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27Gob517642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 03:50:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27GoSH17624 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 03:50:28 +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 LAA25245 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:40:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA01837 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:40:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:40:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203071640.LAA01837@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I am unclear as to what you are saying here. > The 1997 Laws are the current version; I think Peter is pointing out that the alleged 1997 Laws on the ACBL's web site have L66A wrong! The ACBL's printed edition is apparently correct, at least as far as L66A is concerned. Checking the ACBL's online version http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/laws97/index.htm at random, I see that the copyright and "effective" dates in the front and L25B are the correct 1997 versions. 'Demonstrably' is present in L16. It is a mystery to me how the ACBL could have copied L66A from the 1975(!) edition. I wonder what other mistakes exist. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 05:09:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27I8K303366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:08:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27I7uH03297 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:08:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3805.bb.online.no [80.212.222.221]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA24999 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:57:24 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002e01c1c601$8928bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203061709.JAA32019@mailhub.irvine.com> <007701c1c535$7c7893a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:57:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 "common sense" in Norway dictates that the sequence: > > > >1NT - 2C - > >2H - 2S > > > >promises 5 spades, while > > > >1NT - 2C - > >2H - 2NT > > > >promises 4 spades (why ask 2C without 4 cards in at least one major?) > > How else do you raise to 2NT? > 1NT - 2NT ? > >reasonable? > > No, it is a matter of agreement again. There are so many different > response structures to 1NT. Certainly true, but I asked if the above cited agreement sounded reasonable. 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 Mar 8 05:11:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27IBS803934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:11:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27IBJH03918 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:11:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g27I1Ju03621 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:01:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:01 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: 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: <002b01c1c5f3$b8677fc0$a92fe150@pacific> Grattan wrote: > +=+ I think you do misunderstand, not in relation > to 'key purpose' but in relation to 'central standards'. > Compliance with given standards does not imply > uniform procedures. The standards of 'democracy' > encompass apparently the procedures in the USA > with their fierce defence of 'rights', the open fora > of Ancient Rome and Greece, and the British > method of electing a dictator for a five year term > and giving him power to return to the people > sooner if he finds they have not given him > sufficient power, but not later. > My objective is to set principle in the Laws > but to concede wide powers of regulation under > the Laws for achievement of the principle as > the territorial body deems appropriate. Fair enough. But to some of us that is analagous to the International Court condoning such treasured "democratic principles" of Greece and Rome as the disenfranchisement of the poor/women and institutionalised slavery. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 05:19:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27IJA205459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:19:10 +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 g27IIwH05425 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:18:59 +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 g27I8xu06285 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:08:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:44:46 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <008401c1c4f0$0b197f20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020307130900-r01010800-9be31fca-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 3/6/02 at 10:19 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > There is a fine line between inferential and conventional meanings. > Very often it depends upon the actual environment and what is > generally expected by the public there. True. But it's kind of hard for a novice player to know what's "generally expected" and what isn't. I would suppose most novices would think that what they were taught is "generally expected". But is it? If it is, I suppose that they need not alert anything they do which isn't specifically required to be alerted. If it isn't, then what? Alert everything? This kind of thing isn't taught in any of the classes I know about. Teachers seem to feel students have enough trouble remember what bids mean, without worrying about alerting. I suppose they have a point, but... Novice vs. novice is probably no problem, especially if they had the same teacher. Novice vs. expert shouldn't be a problem - the expert is expected (a) to be able to protect himself and (b) to know what he should alert. What happens when people "graduate" from novice to (I guess) intermediate? 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 Mar 8 05:19:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27IJ9B05456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:19:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.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 g27IIvH05423 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:18:58 +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 g27I8uu06235; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:08:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:55:25 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Laws of Duplicate To: Peter Mollemet cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020307130857-r01010800-65edddc4-0904-0109@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 Peter, There is a thread in the Bridge Laws Mailing List discussing Law 66A. It appears that the law as presented on the ACBL web site at http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/laws97/node9.html#law66 varies in a couple of important words from the printed 1997 laws. According to the thread, the wording on the web site was in the 1975 laws, and was changed in 1987. I don't know how it happened, but can you see the web version gets changed to the correct wording (assuming it is in fact incorrect :)? 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 Mar 8 05:48:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27Im5J09812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:48:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27IltH09791 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:47:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g27Ibuu05144 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:37:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:24:57 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020307133756-r01010800-4d6d6750-0904-0109@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 3/6/02 at 2:36 PM, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > Sven, what you said the first time was that it was "common sense" to > respond 2H with both majors without mention of suit quality. This time > you say that with Qxxx or better in both majors we would *unanimously* > respond 2H. While Goren's approach (and indeed mine) may now be less > common than yours I do not think that anybody should draw inferences about > the H length of the 2S bidder without asking. Context is important. :-) Eric Crowhurst, in _Precision Bidding in Acol_, published, I believe, in the early 1970s, discusses this question, saying that some people say bid hearts first, and some spades. He argues it doesn't matter which you bid first, as partner will either have a fit for both, or be able to at least invite game with 2NT. So, he says, bid the better suit. That works well, I expect, in the context of weak notrumps and the other responses he advocated in that book. But if you're playing four suit transfers, so must go through Stayman with *any* invitational hand, you need a way to invite game while showing 4 cards in the unbid major, if you have it. So some people, at least, play 2H-2S as showing that hand, and 2H-2NT as not having 4S. The latter may be alertable (is, in the ACBL) but that's not the point. The point is that *other* bids may affect whether you bid hearts first or spades, and if that's the case, which you bid is not a matter of "general bridge knowledge", but of those other agreements. Or so it seems to me, anyway. 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 Mar 8 05:48:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27ImFj09834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:48:15 +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 (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27Im3H09810 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:48:04 +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 g27Ic0u05220; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:38:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 13:09:45 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020307133800-r01010800-13dee597-0904-0109@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 3/6/02 at 11:13 AM, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > I would much prefer to hear that answers should try to be as helpful as > possible regardless of what the person answering thinks is "general bridge > knowledge". I understand this sentiment. I'm not sure whether I entirely agree with it. If it is "general bridge knowledge" that opener, replying to Stayman, bids "up the line", isn't explaining that's what partner is doing a bit like "teaching at the table", something which it is my understanding is not acceptable? I grant you that knowing what really is "general bridge knowledge" is often difficult (at least for me!) and I suppose that one should err on the side of more disclosure rather than less, but at some point one might be giving information to opponents that they (a) aren't entitled by law to be given by our side and (b) ought to be able to figure out for themselves. If they *should* be able to take advantage of some bit of knowledge they ought to be able to figure out for themselves, but can't not because we don't fully disclose our special agreements, but instead because we don't tell them that bit of knowledge, are we really not playing "in the spirit of the game"? It seems to me there's a line there somewhere, but damned if I can figure out where it is. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 05:59:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27Ix0f11932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:59:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium.btinternet.com (protactinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27IwoH11911 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 05:58:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-8-124.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.8.124] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by protactinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16j2wc-0001sv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:48:51 +0000 Message-ID: <3C87B612.3586A9B6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:48:51 +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: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <200203061709.JAA32019@mailhub.irvine.com> <007701c1c535$7c7893a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: "Adam Beneschan" > > > Generally correct, but you may be interested to know that for instance > > > Goren: New Contract Bridge in a Nutshell (issued in the 1960-ies) > > > dictated that with both majors the correct answer was 2S! > > > > > > Today it is "common sense" to answer 2H with both majors, but it has > > > not always been so. > > > > I don't even see it as "common sense". To me, the primary reason for > > *always* responding 2H with both majors is so that responder can rebid > > 2S with spades and 2NT with no 4-card major---necessary only if you're > > playing a system in which 1NT-2NT is conventional. So I've always > > thought of this agreement as part of a systemic structure, not as > > "common sense". When playing 1NT-2NT as natural, my practice when > > responding to Stayman with both majors has always been to bid > > whichever major I like better. > > And "common sense" in Norway dictates that the sequence: > > 1NT - 2C - > 2H - 2S > > promises 5 spades, while > > 1NT - 2C - > 2H - 2NT > > promises 4 spades (why ask 2C without 4 cards in at least one major?) > > reasonable? > > Sven Why ask without precisely 4 cards in either major? With 5S and <4 hearts, why would you bid 2C? -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Rainsford London UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 06:36:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27JZ3118642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 06:35:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27JYqH18615 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 06:34:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g27JOrI25734 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:24:53 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:24 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: 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: <3C87B612.3586A9B6@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Gordon wrote: > Why ask without precisely 4 cards in either major? > With 5S and <4 hearts, why would you bid 2C? With some 5314 hands I would rather pard played a Moysian 4H than 3NT. Also not playing transfers I may have no other mechanism to make an invite in a major. 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 Mar 8 06:51:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27JpQd21701 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 06:51:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27JpHH21678 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 06:51:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12079; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:41:23 -0800 Message-Id: <200203071941.LAA12079@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:57:23 +0100." <002e01c1c601$8928bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 11:41:22 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: > > >And "common sense" in Norway dictates that the sequence: > > > > > >1NT - 2C - > > >2H - 2S > > > > > >promises 5 spades, while > > > > > >1NT - 2C - > > >2H - 2NT > > > > > >promises 4 spades (why ask 2C without 4 cards in at least one major?) > > > > How else do you raise to 2NT? > > > > 1NT - 2NT ? Maybe you've lost track of the thread---the post of mine that your earlier post up above was a response to, discussed how you need to play Stayman when 1NT-2NT is conventional. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 07:22:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27KLot27280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:21:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27KLZH27246 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:21:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.14.50] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16j4Ed-0003o7-00; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:11:31 +0000 Message-ID: <008201c1c614$bd85e980$074ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200203071500.KAA01712@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:11:43 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 3:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks >> > But the situation is different after partner reveals, by > mannerism or remark, that he has a problem. > +=+ The Universal Law +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 07:22:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27KLp927282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:21:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27KLaH27257 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:21:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.14.50] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16j4Ef-0003o7-00; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:11:33 +0000 Message-ID: <008301c1c614$be927780$074ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200203071640.LAA01837@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 20:13:23 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks > > I am unclear as to what you are saying here. > > The 1997 Laws are the current version; > > I think Peter is pointing out that the alleged 1997 Laws on > the ACBL's web site have L66A wrong! The ACBL's > printed edition is apparently correct, at least as far as > L66A is concerned. > +=+ Ah! Light dawns! Sorry Peter.... +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 07:22:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27KLmI27278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:21:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27KLXH27243 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:21:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.14.50] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16j4Eb-0003o7-00; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:11:30 +0000 Message-ID: <008101c1c614$bc71ba60$074ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brambledown" , "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:59:58 -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: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks > > Grattan Endicott writes: > > > +=+ I confirm that the official Laws of Duplicate Contract > > Bridge 1997 do not include the words "for his inspection". > > Inclusion of these words would appear to be an error in > > translation from the English. No change was made in Law > > 66A from the 1987 Code to the 1997 Code. > > Agreed, but the words "... for his inspection" *do* appear in the 1975 Laws, > so it would not appear to be just a question of translation. > +=+ Apology for omission of :-)) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 07:57:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27KuoA02805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:56:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27KueH02772 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 07:56:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0200.bb.online.no [80.212.208.200]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA05815; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:46:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006701c1c619$2c40a280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: Cc: References: <200203071941.LAA12079@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 21:46:35 +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 > Maybe you've lost track of the thread---the post of mine that your > earlier post up above was a response to, discussed how you need to > play Stayman when 1NT-2NT is conventional. > > -- Adam OK, I probably lost the track. The most common 1NT systems in Norway include: 1NT 15-17 then either 2C Stayman, 2x transfers or 2C weak Stayman 2D Stayman forcing to game (precision responses) 2M signoff and in both cases: 2NT invitational Now, after the sequence 1NT - 2C - 2H, I suppose it makes sense that 2S shows 5 while 2NT shows 4 spades? ( Another popular 1NT system is to allow 5cards major and use puppet Stayman, but I'll stop right here.) Anyway - this clearly demonstrates how important it must be to take into consideration the environment before discussing what is "common sense" or "general knowledge". It may vary from club to club, and certainly across country borders. 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 Mar 8 08:43:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27LgvA11331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:42:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27LgmH11299 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:42:48 +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 g27LVvu26684; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:31:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 16:17:06 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002c01c1c55f$1c36c140$339a1e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20020307163158-r01010800-33615e3b-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 3/6/02 at 2:33 PM, mlfrench@writeme.com (Marvin L. French) wrote: > I think perhaps the ACBL is not living up to its obligations in regard > to disclosure requirements, but it's hard to see how they can do better. A good first step might be a complete redesign of the CC. No doubt there would be opposition to that. I was on the phone with Baron Barclay yesterday, and I asked if they had the new convention card available yet. I was told "no, and we may not do one at all." Apparently they feel it's too much trouble to redo the card every time the ACBL changes it. Or perhaps I should say "she feels". BB is a relatively small company, but even so I'm not sure whether the lady with whom I spoke was expressing the company's position, or her own opinion. 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 Mar 8 08:49:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27Lmaq12042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:48:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27LmTH12021 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:48:29 +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 IAA16592 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:50:41 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 08:36:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:32:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/03/2002 08:37:04 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: [snip] >What on earth is wrong with a disclosure framework that runs. > >1. Pre-alert: Stuff the SO thinks is special/necessary to draw attention >to in advance >2. CC: Basic structure of system, opening bids, responses and conventions >3. Alerts: Stuff the SO wants drawn to the attention of opps as it arises >4. Answers to questions: An elaboration on the basic meaning with all >primary inferences. >5. Answers to follow up questions: Secondary/contextual inferences and >arcane details not covered by 4. I agree with the first three points, but believe that dragging out inferences with follow-up questions should not be required, that is: 4. Answers to questions: An elaboration on the basic meaning with all primary inferences, secondary/contextual inferences and arcane details included. The has the further desirable feature that a question need not pass UI, since "Please explain?" would be sufficient. 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 Mar 8 09:14:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27MDfM16013 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:13:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27MDXH15993 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:13:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16j5z4-00015B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:03:34 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020307164953.00b35de0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:04:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks In-Reply-To: <002d01c1c5b4$ca3f0f40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@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 03:48 AM 3/7/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > +=+ I confirm that the official Laws of Duplicate Contract > > Bridge 1997 do not include the words "for his inspection". > > Inclusion of these words would appear to be an error in > > translation from the English. No change was made in Law > > 66A from the 1987 Code to the 1997 Code. It was always > > envisaged that all four players should see whatever the > > enquirer saw, and that he should not have the benefit of > > information exclusive to himself. > > The above reference to Law 73C is questionable. It > > has been ruled that to ask a question in order to > > communicate to partner the contents of the answer is > > unlawful, but there is no WBF guidance to now whether > > this principle should extend to Law 66A, which would > > change the earlier attitude. There is, be it noted, a > > nuance of difference between a player 'requesting' an > > explanation and a requirement that cards be 'faced'. > > For now the information is AI to all four players. > >Thank you for this clarification. As already stated I consider >this a minor question, but maybe one that deserves one minute >of the law committee's time when discussing the next version >of the laws? I have the impression of a consensus here that >East should not legally be able to "help" his partner as >illustrated in my original post? The apparent consensus probably comes from those who remember the days of "that ol' black magic", when its practitioners were known to use, "May I see the spots, please," as an incantation intended to insure that their partners paid attention to *the asker's own* spot card. If we're worried about this [disclaimer: I'm not, particularly], but don't want to prevent players from asking legitimately, we would need to change the law drastically. We might, for instance, allow a player to see the other three cards only *after* he has turned his own card over (say, until he has played to the next trick) while requiring him to leave his own card face down. I admit I haven't thought this through enough to envision possible undesirable side effects, although they may well be 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 Mar 8 09:28:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27MS0T18583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:28:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27MRqH18556 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:27:52 +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 JAA21233 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:30:04 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 09:16:10 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:59:45 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/03/2002 09:16:26 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> *If* (and I note that this point is undecided) a literal reading >> of the Laws permits deliberate insufficient bids, then >> deliberate insufficient bids should be permitted in practice, >> until the Laws are rewritten with a specific prohibition of >> them. >> >+=+ You do not have a problem, Richard. The Laws, >read literally, do not allow of deliberate insufficient bids. >Law 74A3 requires that players follow 'correct >procedure'. An insufficient bid is not correct procedure.. > A deliberate infringement of 74A3 is contrary to >Law 72B2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It is true that Law 18 is in Chapter 5 - The Auction, Part 1 - Correct Procedure. But in the blml hair-splitting tradition, I note that the Scope and Interpretation specifically states that headings are not part of the Laws. Therefore, "Correct Procedure" has no Lawful definition, so Law 74A3 is technically meaningless. 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 Mar 8 09:31:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27MVOS19220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:31:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27MVGH19197 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:31:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA21964 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:33:28 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 09:19:34 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:09:07 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/03/2002 09:19:50 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: [snip] >I grant you that knowing what really is "general bridge >knowledge" is often difficult (at least for me!) and I >suppose that one should err on the side of more disclosure >rather than less, but at some point one might be giving >information to opponents that they (a) aren't entitled by >law to be given by our side and (b) ought to be able to >figure out for themselves. [snip] I use an extremely narrow definition of "general bridge knowledge". Examples which qualify: 1. Not vul vs vul is the most favourable time to save. 2. When on lead vs 7NT, try an ace. On the other hand, *any* explicit or implicit *agreement* I have with partner I believe that the opponents _are_ entitled to know, and _do not_ have to figure out for themselves. 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 Mar 8 09:36:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27MZsj19996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:35:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27MZkH19975 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:35:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16j6KZ-0005Iq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:25:47 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020307171223.00b32850@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:26:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: <012901c1c5f7$b6a44f20$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 11:47 AM 3/7/02, Richard wrote: >I have long advocated that the unique nature of the online playing >environment will necessitate a series of changes to the Laws of Bridge. >The most obviously examples of these changes are software >implementations that eliminate the possibility for many mechanical >errors such as revokes or leads out of turn. New laws may need to be >introduced to deal brand new classes of mechanical errors such as >misclicks. > >My greatest interest has always been the possibility of using >"mechanizing" aids to automate different aspects of information >exchange. It is already possible to implement software applications >that will associate a hypertext string with a given bidding sequence. >The hypertext string can be used to provide the opposing pair with a >concise explanation of each bid during an auction. Audible alert >messages [or colored text] can be used to indicate bids that deserve >"special" attention. Hypertext links can be used to provide shortcuts >to the appropriate section of a pair's system notes. > >I believe that this type of implementation provides the best solution >for handling issues relating to full disclosure. I have debated this >issue on this mailing list on many occasions in the past. The reason >that I a posting this information [yet again] is that the first of this >class of commercial tools is starting to make its way to market. Unfortunately, most of the problems with disclosure in at-the-table bridge are substantive rather than mechanical. Associating a hypertext string with a given bidding sequence only helps if a partnership can provide a complete and correct textual explanation of the sequence; in the game that Richard envisages, every partnership would perforce be expected to do so. IOW, for Richard's vision to work, any partnership would have to be expected to be able to properly define any sequence. I submit that if that expectation were to be met (personally, I find that totally unrealistic), virtually all of the problems we now have with disclosure would disappear. GIGO. 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 Mar 8 09:57:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27MuSF23192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:56:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27MuKH23172 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 09:56:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16j6eT-0001ca-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:46:21 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020307173439.00b39260@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 17:47:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: <20020307133800-r01010800-13dee597-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> 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 01:09 PM 3/7/02, Ed wrote: >On 3/6/02 at 11:13 AM, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > > > I would much prefer to hear that answers should try to be as > helpful as > > possible regardless of what the person answering thinks is "general > bridge > > knowledge". > >I understand this sentiment. I'm not sure whether I entirely agree >with it. If >it is "general bridge knowledge" that opener, replying to Stayman, >bids "up the >line", isn't explaining that's what partner is doing a bit like >"teaching at the >table", something which it is my understanding is not acceptable? I >grant you >that knowing what really is "general bridge knowledge" is often >difficult (at >least for me!) and I suppose that one should err on the side of more >disclosure >rather than less, but at some point one might be giving information to >opponents >that they (a) aren't entitled by law to be given by our side and (b) >ought to be >able to figure out for themselves. If they *should* be able to take >advantage of >some bit of knowledge they ought to be able to figure out for >themselves, but >can't not because we don't fully disclose our special agreements, but >instead >because we don't tell them that bit of knowledge, are we really not >playing "in >the spirit of the game"? > >It seems to me there's a line there somewhere, but damned if I can >figure out >where it is. In my experience, inexperienced players are generally far less aware than we are of the diversity of what various players (including themselves) might consider "general bridge knowledge", and are therefore far more prone to assume when they should ask than vice versa. I have therefore always been comfortable that if they do ask, I can assume that the answer isn't part of *their* "general bridge knowledge", notwithstanding that it may be part of mine. That leaves me firmly in Tim's camp -- I can find no excuse for refusing to answer *any* question about my methods. At best, "general bridge knowledge" might affect *active* disclosure (e.g. what must be alerted), but it should have no bearing on what one must disclose if asked. I'm not in the least worried that someone who asks me a question and gets a complete and detailed answer is then going to turn around and complain to the ZT cops that I was "giving them bridge lessons at the table". 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 Mar 8 10:14:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27NECs26627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:14:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g27NE3H26597 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:14:04 +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 SAA17459 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:04:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA02173 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:04:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 18:04:03 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203072304.SAA02173@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > Incidentally a Two Heart bid that promises a > four card minor is a convention... No argument from me, but I'll invite readers to ponder: "Our 2H bid shows exactly five cards in hearts. Also, we won't do it with four spades, and we always have a singleton or void somewhere." By the way, I don't think the above 2H agreement is allowed by the ACBL GCC. It is legal under the MidChart, but users have to provide written defenses. > and the CC should give this information, This, surely, is up to the SO. Some SO's don't require CC's at all. In practice, I would expect most SO's to require the information to be on the CC. > which should also be included in the reply to a question. No doubt at all about that! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 10:14:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27NEXK26685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:14:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27NEMH26655 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:14:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3167.bb.online.no [80.212.220.95]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA20251 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:04:17 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002801c1c62c$68976ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@dodona> <4.3.2.7.0.20020307164953.00b35de0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 00:04:08 +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 > >Thank you for this clarification. As already stated I consider > >this a minor question, but maybe one that deserves one minute > >of the law committee's time when discussing the next version > >of the laws? I have the impression of a consensus here that > >East should not legally be able to "help" his partner as > >illustrated in my original post? > > The apparent consensus probably comes from those who remember the days > of "that ol' black magic", when its practitioners were known to use, > "May I see the spots, please," as an incantation intended to insure > that their partners paid attention to *the asker's own* spot card. Such remarks are already illegal under Law 73B1 > > If we're worried about this [disclaimer: I'm not, particularly], but > don't want to prevent players from asking legitimately, we would need > to change the law drastically. We might, for instance, allow a player > to see the other three cards only *after* he has turned his own card > over (say, until he has played to the next trick) while requiring him > to leave his own card face down. I admit I haven't thought this > through enough to envision possible undesirable side effects, although > they may well be there. The purpose of this law is, and has always been (I believe) to "protect" a player against missing the information on which card another player used because that player turned it down too fast for him to notice. As I think it would be a bit awkward to have the law require that all four players turn their cards face down exactly at the same time after each trick when they all have noticed which cards were played, the present laws is probably the best we can have. However, there just might be a provision against a defender "helping" his partner rather than serving his own interest with Law 66A, this is where Law 73C could come handy. But I really do not think this is a question that deserves much ado. 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 Mar 8 10:27:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g27NQte29030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:26:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g27NQkH29005 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:26:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.75.38]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GSM009CELZPFF@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:16:41 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:06:48 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re[BLML]Scoring problem To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000201c1c62d$f900ed20$264b003e@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: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Zk4oMbYcfKP8evrdRYOxKQ)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_Zk4oMbYcfKP8evrdRYOxKQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT When I spoke about applying Law 88 to sit outs ,.I thought about sit-outs the way we have them in Israel that means 2 and rather seldom 3 bds. per session . The argument about "boards you were not meant to play" does not sound valid [as Sven has shown it] . I admit that when Herman wrote that he is not ready to give 60 % on 4 bds. I gave it no second thought [sorry Herman] But then came David's posts and they were about 6 and 8 bds. sit-outs , so now I realise that I don't have all the facts i.e. the total number of bds. in the event in question ,and possible scoring software problems. Scoring and ways of awarding prizes are decidcd by the local organisations.For instance we have clubs which for promotion purposes ,turn their daily duplicates into monthly events and these are decided by the total result of the best 3 results [out of a possible 4 and sometimes 5 results] Not everything is or should be covered by the Laws ,but if there is a Law that covers a certain point there is every reason to act accordingly. IMHO when there is a sit-out of 2 or 3 bds.[out of 24-27] equity demands that they be compensated and Law 88 deals with 'indemnity points' But of course if the sit out is of 6 bds common sense tells you that awarding 60 % + [when you can win the event with 58% would be a case of over compensation. I had nothing to do with scoring for many years so I"ll just dare to suggest that if feasible when there are 3+ bds.sitouts in a one session event 2 bds.should be scored 60+ and the rest the percentage of the pair in this session. An other point not covered by the Law but should be applied is the case when the total percentage of the pair one was supposed to play against was for instance 30% one should get 70%.for these boards. --Boundary_(ID_Zk4oMbYcfKP8evrdRYOxKQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
When I spoke about applying Law 88 to sit outs ,.I thought about sit-outs the way we have them in Israel that means 2 and rather seldom 3 bds. per session . The argument about "boards you were not meant to play" does not sound valid [as Sven has shown it] . I admit that  when
Herman wrote that he is not ready to give 60 % on 4 bds. I gave it no second thought [sorry Herman] But then came David's posts and they were about 6 and 8 bds. sit-outs , so now I realise that I don't have all the facts i.e. the total number of bds. in the event in question ,and possible scoring software problems.
Scoring and ways of awarding prizes are decidcd by the local organisations.For instance we have clubs which for promotion purposes ,turn their daily duplicates into monthly events and these are decided by the total result of the best 3 results [out of a possible 4 and sometimes
5 results]
 Not everything is or should be covered by the Laws ,but if there is a Law that covers a  certain point  there is every reason to act accordingly.
IMHO when there is a sit-out of  2 or 3 bds.[out of 24-27] equity demands that they be compensated and Law 88 deals with 'indemnity points'
But of course if the sit out is of  6 bds common sense tells you that awarding  60 % + [when you can win the event with 58% would be a case of over compensation.  I had nothing to do with scoring for many years so I"ll just dare to suggest that if feasible when there are 3+ bds.sitouts in a one session event    2 bds.should be scored 60+ and the rest the percentage of the pair in this session.
An other point not covered by the Law but should be applied  is the case when the total percentage of the pair one was supposed to play against  was for instance 30% one should get 70%.for these boards.
--Boundary_(ID_Zk4oMbYcfKP8evrdRYOxKQ)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 12:33:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g281WnL23254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:32:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g281WdH23219 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 12:32:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16j95g-000LjC-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 01:22:38 +0000 Message-ID: <+1clPSB1Q2h8EwkV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:59:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@dodona> <002d01c1c5b4$ca3f0f40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <002d01c1c5b4$ca3f0f40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: "Grattan Endicott" >..... >> +=+ I confirm that the official Laws of Duplicate Contract >> Bridge 1997 do not include the words "for his inspection". >> Inclusion of these words would appear to be an error in >> translation from the English. No change was made in Law >> 66A from the 1987 Code to the 1997 Code. It was always >> envisaged that all four players should see whatever the >> enquirer saw, and that he should not have the benefit of >> information exclusive to himself. >> The above reference to Law 73C is questionable. It >> has been ruled that to ask a question in order to >> communicate to partner the contents of the answer is >> unlawful, but there is no WBF guidance to now whether >> this principle should extend to Law 66A, which would >> change the earlier attitude. There is, be it noted, a >> nuance of difference between a player 'requesting' an >> explanation and a requirement that cards be 'faced'. >> For now the information is AI to all four players. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Thank you for this clarification. As already stated I consider >this a minor question, but maybe one that deserves one minute >of the law committee's time when discussing the next version >of the laws? I have the impression of a consensus here that >East should not legally be able to "help" his partner as >illustrated in my original post? If East asked for the cards to be turned face up for the benefit of his partner then he is attempting to communicate something to partner, presumably of value in the last trick, n'est-ce-pas? So surely to do so is not permitted under L73A1 or L73B1? -- 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 Mar 8 15:07:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2847Sh18839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:07:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2847JH18814 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:07:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.41.4]) by hydra.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GSM00LD5VLSR7@hydra.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:44:22 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 20:26:48 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: BLML Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000001c1c654$209d0b40$042928c4@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Ton, The SO should have regulations in place for disclosure, depending on the level of the event. In high level competition, there would be pre-filing of systems and a systems guru. As well, there would be lineups submitted, effectively negating the possibility. However, in a more open environment, CC's are exchanged at the table and lineups are a free for all unless teams have a seating problem. As everyone has mentioned, you would need to obtain a copy from the opposing pair at the other table for the strategy to be effective. Given that you and your teammates could arrange to have a copy of the CC's, I would not see a problem with it other than the "convention disruption" it may cause. Of course, time could be a major factor as well if you need to study the CC to learn the system. In a Pairs event, the opponents have a CC at the table, but you do NOT! There is no way that an SO will consider that "we play the same system as you do" to be a correctly filled out CC. (neither will the TD!) As an opponent, I would lose my 40E2 right to refer to the opponent's CC at my turn to call or play. I would not be able to refer to my CC as per 40E2, and that puts me at a disadvantage to the rest of the room on these deals. It could also be considered to be in violation of 74A2. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:56 AM Subject: [BLML] disclosure 2 | I received a what I consider to be an interesting question. | Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your filled | out convention card to the table which only says: we play the same system as | you do. The reason for this question is worth mentioning as well. Consider a | multi session teams event in which a team after 3 sessions is comfortably | ahead. They don't need swings anymore, so adopting their opponents system | gives the highest expectation of washes. | But the question is meant generally. In a pairs event it means that this | pair changes sysytems every round. | | I know that a sponsoring organization could forbid it by regulation, but | what if it didn't? Don't get lost in details, I know the problem of 2 pairs | with this same strategy meeting each other. | | ton | -- | ======================================================================== | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. | A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 15:47:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g284lWO25624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:47:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g284lNH25605 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:47:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from 209-193-12-40-dial-as1.fai.acsalaska.net (209-193-12-40-dial-as1.fai.acsalaska.net [209.193.12.40]) by ptialaska.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g284bMf06681 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:37:22 -0900 (AKST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 19:37:24 -0900 (Alaskan Standard Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-X-Sender: mschmahl@ptialaska.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Tim wrote: > > [snip] > > >What on earth is wrong with a disclosure framework that runs. > > > >1. Pre-alert: Stuff the SO thinks is special/necessary to draw attention > >to in advance > >2. CC: Basic structure of system, opening bids, responses and conventions > >3. Alerts: Stuff the SO wants drawn to the attention of opps as it arises > >4. Answers to questions: An elaboration on the basic meaning with all > >primary inferences. > >5. Answers to follow up questions: Secondary/contextual inferences and > >arcane details not covered by 4. > > I agree with the first three points, but believe that dragging out > inferences with follow-up questions should not be required, that is: > > 4. Answers to questions: An elaboration on the basic meaning with all > primary inferences, secondary/contextual inferences and arcane details > included. > > The has the further desirable feature that a question need not pass UI, > since "Please explain?" would be sufficient. > If you've been playing with your current partner for long enough, you may have reams of "arcane details" that are part of the "partnership experience". Although I don't disagree that these are disclosable, I doubt the opponents really want to hear the entire life history of the partnership everytime they ask about a bid. North: "3D." East: "Tell me about your preempting style." South: "6 playing tricks at this vulnerability, probably Jxx or less in the majors. Usually a seven-card suit, but once in 1983 he opened 3S with a six-card suit -- but we were 38 IMPs behind in the match, and I'm not sure whether he thinks we are that far behind now. KT8xxxx is a good enough suit for him, if he has a side Ace, but without an Ace, the interiors will be better. A four-card club suit will encourage him to bid more agressively, or a major-suit void; only last year he opened 4D with x x KTxxxxx QJxx...." -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 8 16:44:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g285hlZ05782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:43:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g285hdH05765 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:43:39 +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 QAA26598 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:45:01 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:31:09 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:26:37 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/03/2002 04:31:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [big snip] >for Richard's vision to work, any partnership >would have to be expected to be able to properly >define any sequence. I submit that if that >expectation were to be met (personally, I find >that totally unrealistic), virtually all of the >problems we now have with disclosure would >disappear. GIGO. > >Eric Landau When Benito Garozzo coached the Italian Youth Team, he asked his pupils to define every bidding sequence. Like Eric, they complained that the task was totally unrealistic. Edgar Kaplan noted that Precision players gain an advantage over Standard players, since the codified/artificial Precision style compelled a partnership to discuss and define more bidding sequences. In my regular (relay) partnership, all bidding sequences are defined. However, realism was achieved by defining a large number of sequences as non-systemic. We also have a meta-rule: If a non-systemic call is made, the wrong card has been accidentally pulled from the bidding box :-) 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 Mar 8 17:06:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28660M09821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:06:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2865qH09805 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:05:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA29595 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:08:03 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:54:10 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:49:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 08/03/2002 04:54:25 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >North: "3D." >East: "Tell me about your preempting style." >South: "6 playing tricks at this vulnerability, probably >Jxx or less in the majors. Usually a seven-card suit, but >once in 1983 he opened 3S with a six-card suit -- but we >were 38 IMPs behind in the match, and I'm not sure whether >he thinks we are that far behind now. KT8xxxx is a good >enough suit for him, if he has a side Ace, but without an >Ace, the interiors will be better. A four-card club suit >will encourage him to bid more agressively, or a major-suit >void; only last year he opened 4D with x x KTxxxxx QJxx...." > >Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA I much prefer the above explanation to the alternative sequence - North: "3D" East: "Tell me about your preempting style." South: "It's just a preempt." East: "Can you be more specific?" South: "Just a standard preempt." East: "Define a standard preempt." South: "The dictionary says Pre- means before, and -empt means..." 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 Mar 8 19:08:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2887tS04286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 19:07:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2887iH04251 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 19:07:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2513.bb.online.no [80.212.217.209]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA04777 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:57:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000d01c1c676$ea865fc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@dodona> <002d01c1c5b4$ca3f0f40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <+1clPSB1Q2h8EwkV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 08:57:38 +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 > If East asked for the cards to be turned face up for the benefit of > his partner then he is attempting to communicate something to partner, > presumably of value in the last trick, n'est-ce-pas? So surely to do so > is not permitted under L73A1 or L73B1? Exactly, This is a variation of my original post where East had the possibility to "help" partner: West had already turned his card face down and asked me (TD) if he could see the cards played by North and South. East still had his card face up. I told them that I "wouldn't like it" if East now exercised his (formal) right to request those cards turned face up again only for the benefit of partner who he knew (from UI) had an interest in seeing those cards. This lead to no problem at the table. I must admit I didn't think of Law 73C at the time, but I believe that one could be relevant? (Grattan has indicated this is questionable). 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 Mar 8 23:31:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28CUSE27786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 23:30:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28CUIH27759 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 23:30:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.90]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GSN001F9M9LRU@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:20:12 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:18:34 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001801c1c69b$6e8f4c40$5a4e003e@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=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203060145.RAA23898@mailhub.irvine.com> <000c01c1c4b7$7eae5ca0$339a1e18@san.rr.com> <000601c1c4ea$472ce340$9228e150@dodona> <002c01c1c55f$1c36c140$339a1e18@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi "should get you hung drawn and quartered" "no one disagrees with all that " and not only because you don' do it to convicted cheats , it seems you are rather lenient with them.but because at any----- Original Message ----- given moment there are thousands [millions] of people playing recreational duplicate bridge-under these very laws-and at least 90 % of them have nothing worthwhile to disclose . I'm writing it because after many years I try again to suggest that it's in the best interest of bridge that the WBF promulgates a special simplified code of Laws for club duplicates / recreational bridge tournaments or any appropriate heading. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 12:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > Not really off-topic. Disclosure includes Alerts. The ACBL > > > requires that most conventions be Alerted, so determining > > > what constitutes a convention becomes important. > > > > > +=+ Special partnership agreements must be fully and freely > > available to opponents. A player need not disclose inferences > > drawn from his general knowledge and experience. A player > > may not make a call or play based on a special partnership > > agreement unless an opposing pair may be expected toMarv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > understand its meaning. If they should not be expected to > > understand its meaning without it, his side may only use > > the call if they disclose it in accordance with the > > regulations. > > So what your opponents will know about your call as a > > matter of general (available to all) bridge knowledge may be > > used without disclosure; as a matter of law other agreements, > > explicit or implicit must be disclosed. If you are not > > required to alert them your only route to disclosure is to > > show them on your convention card. The SO does not have > > the power to say they need not be disclosed. If a bid > > specifically denies or specifies a holding in an unnamed > > suit - and it is not general bridge knowledge that this will > > be so - the laws demand disclosure. Otherwise you are > > using a concealed partnership understanding and that > > should get you hung, drawn and quartered. > > > No one disgrees with all that, I'm sure. However, the Laws say that > disclosure must be made in accordance with the methods dictated by SOs. > The ACBL has a prescribed convention card, pre-Alerts, Alerts, > Announcements, and Post-Alerts. Moreover, we are asked to freely > volunteer anything not disclosed by those methods. Declarer/dummy does > this before the opening lead is made, defenders after play is complete. > > There are holes in this approach, but that's what we are given. > Instructions for filling out the convention card do not include much > more than the bare bones of understandings, not the subtleties (for > which there isn't room). Some low-level agtreeements should be known > during the auction, not after it, and some defensive low-level > agreements should be known before play, not after it. > > I think perhaps the ACBL is not living up to its obligations in regard > to disclosure requirements, but it's hard to see how they can do better. > Permitting players to send partenr away from the table would be a step > in the right direction, permitting disclosures at the right time. We > used to do that in the 50s and 60s, but are now told not to do it.. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > Off to Houston tomorrow > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 9 00:14:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28DDr105981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 00:13:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g28DDiH05956 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 00:13:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA05358; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:01:00 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA03978; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:03:43 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020308135036.00a4c1d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:08:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] not self serving Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dar blmlists, I would like to tell you about a curious case from yesterday night. In my opionion, it shows that the classical notion of 'self-serving argument' shouldn't be applied without due consideration. KJxxx xx AJxxx Q AQ109xx xx Jxx A10x --- KQ109x J9xx Axx --- KQxxx xxx K10xxx W N E S 3S p ...4S ...X p p p West asked about the double. North answered 'penalties'. No need to say West played the hand upside down. Even with the favorable diamond lead, he was down 2. There was no director that night, so the players had to settle the case themselves. NS's CC mentions 'most Dbls are takeout up to 3S unless a GF is created'. South now had to explain his peculiar double. He stated that he had seen East's tempo, deduced from his hand that East wasn't thinking of a slam, thus East most probably was on the light side either on trumps or general strength, and South should better double himself in front of partner, because a) the contract was most probably going down, which is the best reason for doubling ; b) the double might cause problems to West (a truly great player) in the play. North then said that she knew something bizarre had happened (perhaps West, NV vs V, had psyched ?), but that she did her duty by explaining their side's agreement. After all, if partner wants to double, he's welcome. Since this was not such a good score for NS (4SX was quite popular), the argument settled. You might think NS's explanations, especially South's, were self -serving. They were not. South had thought quite a little before doubling, and the whole reasoning was authentic. How can I know ? I was South. As I re-read several threads and AC decisions mentioning SSAs , I feel that some were of the same quality as these. Could this mean that the notion of SSA is a little to broad ? 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 Mar 9 00:43:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28Ddf910406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 00:39:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g28DdWH10371 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 00:39:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16jKR9-0007gH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 08:29:31 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020308082027.00b35420@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 08:30:38 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks In-Reply-To: <002801c1c62c$68976ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@dodona> <4.3.2.7.0.20020307164953.00b35de0@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 06:04 PM 3/7/02, Sven wrote: > > The apparent consensus probably comes from those who remember the days > > of "that ol' black magic", when its practitioners were known to use, > > "May I see the spots, please," as an incantation intended to insure > > that their partners paid attention to *the asker's own* spot card. > >Such remarks are already illegal under Law 73B1 In theory, but there's no way to take any action pursuant to L73B1. After all, a player who asks to see the cards will perforce claim to do so because he wants to see the cards; not even David S., who repeatedly reminds us that players tell the truth most of the time, would expect most players who might ask for partner's benefit to admit (even, sometimes, to themselves) to having done so. And if we start basing such actions on a "could have known" criterion, we will effectively ban the practice altogether. > > If we're worried about this [disclaimer: I'm not, particularly], but > > don't want to prevent players from asking legitimately, we would need > > to change the law drastically. We might, for instance, allow a player > > to see the other three cards only *after* he has turned his own card > > over (say, until he has played to the next trick) while requiring him > > to leave his own card face down. I admit I haven't thought this > > through enough to envision possible undesirable side effects, although > > they may well be there. > >The purpose of this law is, and has always been (I believe) to "protect" >a player against missing the information on which card another player >used because that player turned it down too fast for him to notice. As >I think it would be a bit awkward to have the law require that all four >players turn their cards face down exactly at the same time after each >trick when they all have noticed which cards were played, the present >laws is probably the best we can have. However, there just might be a >provision against a defender "helping" his partner rather than serving his >own interest with Law 66A, this is where Law 73C could come handy. There is nothing in what I have proposed to suggest any possible need for all four players to turn their cards simultaneously; I don't see where Sven got that impression from what I wrote. >But I really do not think this is a question that deserves much ado. I agree, hence the "disclaimer" above. 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 Mar 9 01:40:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28EdwL22646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 01:39:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f221.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.23.221]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28EdoH22620 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 01:39:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 06:29:45 -0800 Received: from 128.224.4.125 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:29:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [128.224.4.125] From: "richard willey" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:29:45 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Mar 2002 14:29:45.0539 (UTC) FILETIME=[B1A95130:01C1C6AD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote >Unfortunately, most of the problems with disclosure in at-the-table >bridge are substantive rather than mechanical. Associating a hypertext >string with a given bidding sequence only helps if a >partnership can >provide a complete and correct textual explanation of >the sequence; in the >game that Richard envisages, every partnership >would perforce be expected >to do so. IOW, for Richard's vision to >work, any partnership would have >to be expected to be able to >properly define any sequence. There is an expression that I have long loved. "Don't make the best the enemy of the good." I am in agreement with Eric. It is impossible to expect that every partnership will be able to provide a complete explanation of each and every one of their bids. At the same time, I don't consider it unreasonable to expect players to be able to provide a basic explanation regarding their opening structure as well as common responses. My expectation is that the amount of information that people are able to disclose will depend [to soe extent] on the class of system that they play. I prefer to play relay systems. It is trivial for me to describe the meaning of all of my potential relay sequences. In contrast, it is much more difficult to provide the same depth of information in the bidding tree during natural sequences. To me, this suggests that it is rational to expect players to provide different amounts of information depending on the nature of the system that they are playing. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Mar 9 01:53:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28Er3125176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 01:53:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g28EqsH25152 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 01:52:55 +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 16jLa7-0009XO-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:42:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:41:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >>> *If* (and I note that this point is undecided) a literal reading >>> of the Laws permits deliberate insufficient bids, then >>> deliberate insufficient bids should be permitted in practice, >>> until the Laws are rewritten with a specific prohibition of >>> them. >>> >>+=+ You do not have a problem, Richard. The Laws, >>read literally, do not allow of deliberate insufficient bids. >>Law 74A3 requires that players follow 'correct >>procedure'. An insufficient bid is not correct procedure.. >> A deliberate infringement of 74A3 is contrary to >>Law 72B2. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >It is true that Law 18 is in Chapter 5 - The Auction, Part 1 - >Correct Procedure. > >But in the blml hair-splitting tradition, I note that the >Scope and Interpretation specifically states that headings are >not part of the Laws. > >Therefore, "Correct Procedure" has no Lawful definition, so >Law 74A3 is technically meaningless. No: there is nothing to say that a phrase without a definition in the laws is meaningless. After all, if that were a normal communication method, then your email would be meaningless. We do not actually need to try to make the Laws unworkable: that is hardly a valid objective. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 02:07:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28F6rB27768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 02:06:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04bw.bigpond.com (mta04bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28F6jH27746 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 02:06:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.24.81]) by mta04bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GSNTIG00.5G5 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 00:56:40 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.19 ([144.138.141.19]) by bwmam05.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 38/402493); 09 Mar 2002 00:56:36 Message-ID: <016701c1c6b1$6fd007a0$138d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 01:56:27 +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 I was given this problem from the Gold Coast Pairs Congress Final. One of Australia's top pairs arrive at your table for the umpteenth time. They place their CCs in front of you and your partner, and you are surprised to see that they are now playing 'Relays with Short Club' instead of "Relays with Strong Club". For over 15 years, they have played Strong Club against you. 1C may be void in clubs but is now 12+ points instead of 15+ points. You look up and LHO has opened 1C so it is too late to tell partner. You are almost certain that partner would have bothered to look at their CC, although you saw nothing of what partner did with their CC. RHO alerts 1C, partner bids 1S without asking, and RHO passes. 1S would have been "majors or minors" if 1C were 15+, but is natural versus the 12+ 1C. You hold: KQJxxx, Jx, Qxx, Jx. Even without looking at your hand, you are 98% sure that partner's style is to be unaware of the opponents' new methods and thus he has "majors or minors". Your spade holding makes you 99.99% sure. Should you alert 1S? [its artifical meaning is alertable, its natural meaning is not alertable.] You pass. LHO bids 2H, passed to your 2S, all pass. Should you make a comment before you put dummy down? Either for legal reasons, or to prevent the opponents being mystified by your lack of enterprise, or not at all? Partner, of course, had the minors, just as you *knew* he did. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 02:57:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28FvB007962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 02:57:11 +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 g28Fv2H07928 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 02:57:03 +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 KAA16791 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:47:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA07722 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:47:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 10:47:01 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203081547.KAA07722@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > They place their CCs in front of you and your partner, and you are > surprised to see ... > You look up and LHO has opened 1C so it is too late to tell partner. When is it too late to tell partner? I have always assumed it is when you look at your own cards, but I don't know any authority for that. Perhaps it should instead be the beginning of the Auction Period (L17A), but I don't know any authority for that either. Maybe L73A1? Whatever is correct, I don't see how the _opponents_ having done something can make it too late. Sorry... no answer to Peter's main questions, but I think L75C "all special information" is relevant. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 03:17:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28GGjB11552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:16:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g28GGVH11516 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:16:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16jMt1-000JgN-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:06:30 +0000 Message-ID: <6uUUJ4AbONi8EwNw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:07:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <200203061709.JAA32019@mailhub.irvine.com> <007701c1c535$7c7893a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002e01c1c601$8928bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <002e01c1c601$8928bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 >> >And "common sense" in Norway dictates that the sequence: >> > >> >1NT - 2C - >> >2H - 2S >> > >> >promises 5 spades, while >> > >> >1NT - 2C - >> >2H - 2NT >> > >> >promises 4 spades (why ask 2C without 4 cards in at least one major?) >> >> How else do you raise to 2NT? >> > >1NT - 2NT ? What about the diamond suit? :) >> >reasonable? >> >> No, it is a matter of agreement again. There are so many different >> response structures to 1NT. > >Certainly true, but I asked if the above cited agreement sounded reasonable. Perhaps I misunderstood. It is a reasonable way of playing, certainly: it is not a reasonable assumption to make of someone playing. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 03:17:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28GGjl11551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:16:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g28GGVH11517 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:16:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16jMt2-000JgO-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:06:31 +0000 Message-ID: <4e5UVHBsTNi8Ewv3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:12:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <20020307133800-r01010800-13dee597-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020307133800-r01010800-13dee597-0904-0109@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 3/6/02 at 11:13 AM, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > >> I would much prefer to hear that answers should try to be as helpful as >> possible regardless of what the person answering thinks is "general bridge >> knowledge". > >I understand this sentiment. I'm not sure whether I entirely agree with it. If >it is "general bridge knowledge" that opener, replying to Stayman, bids "up the >line", isn't explaining that's what partner is doing a bit like "teaching at the >table", something which it is my understanding is not acceptable? I grant you >that knowing what really is "general bridge knowledge" is often difficult (at >least for me!) and I suppose that one should err on the side of more disclosure >rather than less, but at some point one might be giving information to opponents >that they (a) aren't entitled by law to be given by our side and (b) ought to be >able to figure out for themselves. If they *should* be able to take advantage of >some bit of knowledge they ought to be able to figure out for themselves, but >can't not because we don't fully disclose our special agreements, but instead >because we don't tell them that bit of knowledge, are we really not playing "in >the spirit of the game"? > >It seems to me there's a line there somewhere, but damned if I can figure out >where it is. I think that a response to Stayman is a good example of the line. In my view a 2H response to Stayman shows four cards, and that is sufficient explanation generally. It is not reasonable for an opponent to infer anything about which suit is bid without finding out. But it is reasonable to let the opponent find out. If he wants to know he can ask. Despite Full Disclosure as a principle, you do not want an unreasonable amount of noise to spoil the game, and to continuously give overlong explanations does little good. Of course we want players to tell the truth when asking a question about system. But not all the truth! It would take too long! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 03:17:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28GGwO11577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:16:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g28GGhH11548 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:16:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16jMt2-000JgP-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:06:41 +0000 Message-ID: <5+tUdSB+XNi8Ewtz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:17:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <012901c1c5f7$b6a44f20$7d04e080@isi.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020307171223.00b32850@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020307171223.00b32850@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 >At 11:47 AM 3/7/02, Richard wrote: > >>I have long advocated that the unique nature of the online playing >>environment will necessitate a series of changes to the Laws of Bridge. >>The most obviously examples of these changes are software >>implementations that eliminate the possibility for many mechanical >>errors such as revokes or leads out of turn. New laws may need to be >>introduced to deal brand new classes of mechanical errors such as >>misclicks. >> >>My greatest interest has always been the possibility of using >>"mechanizing" aids to automate different aspects of information >>exchange. It is already possible to implement software applications >>that will associate a hypertext string with a given bidding sequence. >>The hypertext string can be used to provide the opposing pair with a >>concise explanation of each bid during an auction. Audible alert >>messages [or colored text] can be used to indicate bids that deserve >>"special" attention. Hypertext links can be used to provide shortcuts >>to the appropriate section of a pair's system notes. >> >>I believe that this type of implementation provides the best solution >>for handling issues relating to full disclosure. I have debated this >>issue on this mailing list on many occasions in the past. The reason >>that I a posting this information [yet again] is that the first of this >>class of commercial tools is starting to make its way to market. > >Unfortunately, most of the problems with disclosure in at-the-table >bridge are substantive rather than mechanical. Associating a hypertext >string with a given bidding sequence only helps if a partnership can >provide a complete and correct textual explanation of the sequence; in >the game that Richard envisages, every partnership would perforce be >expected to do so. IOW, for Richard's vision to work, any partnership >would have to be expected to be able to properly define any >sequence. I submit that if that expectation were to be met >(personally, I find that totally unrealistic), virtually all of the >problems we now have with disclosure would disappear. GIGO. Another problem with this approach is that the answers you give are different against different oppos. If you play weaker opposition you tend to avoid complexities but explain simple matters further: how can you do this if you have already a defined string to explain? In online bridge it is often horrendously difficult to get sense out of oppos anyway: that is not one of the advantages of OLB! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 03:17:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28GHAt11606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:17:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g28GGhH11549 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:16:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16jMt2-000JgQ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 16:06:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 15:21:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@dodona> <4.3.2.7.0.20020307164953.00b35de0@pop.starpower.net> <002801c1c62c$68976ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020308082027.00b35420@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020308082027.00b35420@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 >At 06:04 PM 3/7/02, Sven wrote: > >> > The apparent consensus probably comes from those who remember the days >> > of "that ol' black magic", when its practitioners were known to use, >> > "May I see the spots, please," as an incantation intended to insure >> > that their partners paid attention to *the asker's own* spot card. >> >>Such remarks are already illegal under Law 73B1 > >In theory, but there's no way to take any action pursuant to >L73B1. After all, a player who asks to see the cards will perforce >claim to do so because he wants to see the cards; not even David S., >who repeatedly reminds us that players tell the truth most of the time, >would expect most players who might ask for partner's benefit to admit >(even, sometimes, to themselves) to having done so. And if we start >basing such actions on a "could have known" criterion, we will >effectively ban the practice altogether. Not at all. This may sound right as a theory, but it will not happen in practice. Once we know what Law applies we then apply it. But only when it needs applying. So, it will only happen when [a] the matter is reported to the TD and [b] he makes a particular judgement. This will be extremely rare. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 03:28:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28GRrH12955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:27:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g28GRhH12951 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:27:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g28GHaj13998 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:17:36 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:17 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: 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: Richard wrote: > >4. Answers to questions: An elaboration on the basic meaning with all > >primary inferences. > >5. Answers to follow up questions: Secondary/contextual inferences and > >arcane details not covered by 4. > > I agree with the first three points, but believe that dragging out > inferences with follow-up questions should not be required, that is: > > 4. Answers to questions: An elaboration on the basic meaning with all > primary inferences, secondary/contextual inferences and arcane details > included. There is a balance here that I find hard to define, but relatively simple to deal with at the table. I can generally "tell" how much info a questioner is seeking and pitch to that requirement. Much of the time I know that an opponent wants less detail than I am capable of providing so a statement like "If it's only 6 cards the intermediates will be good" suffices - and is much quicker than explaining suit quality in detail. I do know that if I gave my best effort at a "helpful" answer and ended it with "do you want any more details?" I would feel incredibly hard done by if I then was told off for making an opponent "drag out the inferences". Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 03:49:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28GmmU12976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:48:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28GmeH12972 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:48:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (80-200-2-202.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.2.202]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g28Gcdx21657 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:38:39 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C88E932.40101@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 17:39:14 +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] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" References: <016701c1c6b1$6fd007a0$138d8a90@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 Yet another problem that is best solved by the DeWael School. Peter Gill wrote: > I was given this problem from the Gold Coast Pairs Congress Final. > > One of Australia's top pairs arrive at your table for the umpteenth > time. They place their CCs in front of you and your partner, and you are > surprised to see that they are now playing 'Relays with Short Club' > instead of "Relays with Strong Club". For over 15 years, they have > played Strong Club against you. > Any takers on the fact that they should have told this before beginning. I would, as TD, put any blame of misinformation on this pair. > 1C may be void in clubs but is now 12+ points instead of 15+ points. > You look up and LHO has opened 1C so it is too late to tell partner. I agree with this statement but, since I believe opps are at fault, I would allow you to pass some Info to your partner without considering it UI. > You are almost certain that partner would have bothered to look at > their CC, although you saw nothing of what partner did with their CC. > > RHO alerts 1C, partner bids 1S without asking, and RHO passes. > 1S would have been "majors or minors" if 1C were 15+, but is > natural versus the 12+ 1C. You hold: KQJxxx, Jx, Qxx, Jx. > > Even without looking at your hand, you are 98% sure that partner's > style is to be unaware of the opponents' new methods and thus he > has "majors or minors". Your spade holding makes you 99.99% sure. > > Should you alert 1S? > [its artifical meaning is alertable, its natural meaning is not > alertable.] The dWS says that you should explain as partner intended it. That way, opponents have a correct view of partner's hand, and after all, you are not certain that this is MI, are you ? > > You pass. LHO bids 2H, passed to your 2S, all pass. > There might be UI issues here, because you know what partner has by the fact (UI) that he has not looked at opps CC. But since I am blaming them, I will let you off the hook on this one. Belgium has a regulation that you are obliged to TELL opponents your basic system A CC in itself is not enough. > Should you make a comment before you put dummy down? Either > for legal reasons, or to prevent the opponents being mystified by > your lack of enterprise, or not at all? Partner, of course, had the > minors, just as you *knew* he did. > I would make the comment before tabling, but after the lead, since I don't think anything was wrong. But to cover yourself. > 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 Sat Mar 9 04:00:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28Gxk512988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:59:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28GxbH12984 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:59:38 +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 g27H5vo07178 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2002 17:05:57 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:46:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) 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: >Richard wrote: > >> >4. Answers to questions: An elaboration on the basic meaning with all >> >primary inferences. >> >5. Answers to follow up questions: Secondary/contextual inferences and >> >arcane details not covered by 4. >> >> I agree with the first three points, but believe that dragging out >> inferences with follow-up questions should not be required, that is: >> >> 4. Answers to questions: An elaboration on the basic meaning with all >> primary inferences, secondary/contextual inferences and arcane details >> included. > >There is a balance here that I find hard to define, but relatively simple >to deal with at the table. I can generally "tell" how much info a >questioner is seeking and pitch to that requirement. Much of the time I >know that an opponent wants less detail than I am capable of providing so >a statement like "If it's only 6 cards the intermediates will be good" >suffices - and is much quicker than explaining suit quality in detail. > >I do know that if I gave my best effort at a "helpful" answer and ended it >with "do you want any more details?" I would feel incredibly hard done by >if I then was told off for making an opponent "drag out the inferences". > >Tim > I'm 100% with Tim here, he ticked me off last week for making an unhelpful explanation (and that was not my intention - it just hadn't crossed my mind that I needed to explain the point I'd missed). ... and for example Gordon and I play a variable NT. If we become the declaring side after a 1NT opener I always tell the opponents the range of the NT before the opening lead, whether they ask or not. I think that that is the right way to give full disclosure. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 05:37:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28Iau529762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 05:36:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28IajH29729 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 05:36:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-22-41.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.22.41] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16jP4f-0001Jr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 18:26:37 +0000 Message-ID: <3C890253.CCEE6A83@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 18:26:27 +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] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" References: <016701c1c6b1$6fd007a0$138d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> <3C88E932.40101@village.uunet.be> 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 Herman De Wael wrote: > > There might be UI issues here, because you know what partner has by > the fact (UI) that he has not looked at opps CC. Where did this come from, Herman? Peter wrote that "you saw nothing of what partner did with their CC." -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Rainsford London UK --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 06:11:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28JBO906424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 06:11:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28JBFH06388 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 06:11:15 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g28J0Sk16181 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:00:28 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200203081900.g28J0Sk16181@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 14:00:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4e5UVHBsTNi8Ewv3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> from "David Stevenson" at Mar 08, 2002 03:12:44 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >It seems to me there's a line there somewhere, but damned if I can figure out > >where it is. > > I think that a response to Stayman is a good example of the line. In > my view a 2H response to Stayman shows four cards, and that is > sufficient explanation generally. It is not reasonable for an opponent > to infer anything about which suit is bid without finding out. > > But it is reasonable to let the opponent find out. If he wants to > know he can ask. Despite Full Disclosure as a principle, you do not > want an unreasonable amount of noise to spoil the game, and to > continuously give overlong explanations does little good. > > Of course we want players to tell the truth when asking a question > about system. But not all the truth! It would take too long! > I understand the sentiment but disagree with the example. I find that it wastes time not to be specific here. I always want to know how the partnership treats 4-4 in the majors (and I do mean always. It's descriptive of the hand that rate to be hidden.) and it doesn't take significantly more time to add the (after a 2S response) denies 4H. I've always explained negative inferences and generally give the precise wording of the explanation some thought so that I can be efficient. I'm not particularly concerned that I may not have to under the Laws. Just feels right to me. As a side bonus I find that I tend to get better explanations because I give good explanations. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 07:36:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28KZix23006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 07:35:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28KZZH23002 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 07:35:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.101.179]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GSO004D78QDJ2@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:25:28 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:23:41 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks To: Eric Landau Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001c01c1c6df$38b0c4c0$b365003e@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: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CA@al21.minfod.com> <016f01c1c54c$610e5480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002c01c1c5ab$372f22c0$3c0ce150@dodona> <4.3.2.7.0.20020307164953.00b35de0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020308082027.00b35420@pop.starpower.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As long as you have not turned your card face down you are protected by the law ,if any player turns down his card too quickly for you to notice you can demand inspection . So all you have to do is not to turn y o u r card down too quickly. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum Tel Aviv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:30 PM Subject: Re: Re: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks > At 06:04 PM 3/7/02, Sven wrote: > > > > The apparent consensus probably comes from those who remember the days > > > of "that ol' black magic", when its practitioners were known to use, > > > "May I see the spots, please," as an incantation intended to insure > > > that their partners paid attention to *the asker's own* spot card. > > > >Such remarks are already illegal under Law 73B1 > > In theory, but there's no way to take any action pursuant to > L73B1. After all, a player who asks to see the cards will perforce > claim to do so because he wants to see the cards; not even David S., > who repeatedly reminds us that players tell the truth most of the time, > would expect most players who might ask for partner's benefit to admit > (even, sometimes, to themselves) to having done so. And if we start > basing such actions on a "could have known" criterion, we will > effectively ban the practice altogether. > > > > If we're worried about this [disclaimer: I'm not, particularly], but > > > don't want to prevent players from asking legitimately, we would need > > > to change the law drastically. We might, for instance, allow a player > > > to see the other three cards only *after* he has turned his own card > > > over (say, until he has played to the next trick) while requiring him > > > to leave his own card face down. I admit I haven't thought this > > > through enough to envision possible undesirable side effects, although > > > they may well be there. > > > >The purpose of this law is, and has always been (I believe) to "protect" > >a player against missing the information on which card another player > >used because that player turned it down too fast for him to notice. As > >I think it would be a bit awkward to have the law require that all four > >players turn their cards face down exactly at the same time after each > >trick when they all have noticed which cards were played, the present > >laws is probably the best we can have. However, there just might any playerany player"helping" his partner rather than serving his > >own interest with Law 66A, this is where Law 73C could come handy. > > There is nothing in what I have proposed to suggest any possible need > for all four players to turn their cards simultaneously; I don't see > where Sven got that impression from what I wrote. > > >But I really do not think this is a question that deserves much ado. > > I agree, hence the "disclaimer" above. > > > 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 Sat Mar 9 07:49:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28KnQj23028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 07:49:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g28KnDH23020 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 07:49:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.12.238] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16jR8s-0004by-00; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:39:07 +0000 Message-ID: <003201c1c6e1$c44545e0$ee0ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <01bf01c1c595$64586c40$e216b9d2@laptop> <004401c1c5ae$273ee820$3c0ce150@dodona> <002401c1c5c3$1db3c5e0$8d16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 20:38:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > I take the view that every regulation preventing a > pair playing some system or other takes away > from rather than adds to our game. > > Wayne > +=+ So Wayne, Am I wrong to surmise you believe you should be allowed to play anything you fancy in each and every tournament? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 07:49:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28KnQo23029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 07:49:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28KnEH23021 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 07:49:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.12.238] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16jR8u-0004by-00; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:39:08 +0000 Message-ID: <003301c1c6e1$c5504d40$ee0ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "John \(MadDog\) Probst" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020306080224.00b31830@pop.starpower.net> <011501c1c525$d16fa020$d6117ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 20:41:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 > In article <011501c1c525$d16fa020$d6117ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn > writes > >Ton wrote: > > > >> >I received a what I consider to be an interesting > >> >question. > >> >Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? > >> >So you bring your filled out convention card to the > >> >table which only says: we play the same system > >> >as you do. > >-- +=+ So that you may consult the 'shared' convention card to know the meaning of opponents' calls, but not to remind yourself of the meaning of your side's calls? Standard Schizophrenic ? ~ 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 Mar 9 07:52:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28KqfY23047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 07:52:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28KqWH23043 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 07:52:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.101.179]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GSO004GB9IOJD@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:42:26 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 22:41:13 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: David Stevenson Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004501c1c6e1$975d4d20$b365003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <20020307133800-r01010800-13dee597-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> <4e5UVHBsTNi8Ewv3@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk " "an unreasonable amount of time" [full disclosure] "But not all the truth it would take too long" Steps in the right direction . Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > Ed Reppert writes > >On 3/6/02 at 11:13 AM, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > > > >> I would much prefer to hear that answers should try to be as helpful as > >> possible regardless of what the person answering thinks is "general bridge > >> knowledge". > > > >I understand this sentiment. I'm not sure whether I entirely agree with it. If > >it is "general bridge knowledge" that opener, replying to Stayman, bids "up the > >line", isn't explaining that's what partner is doing a bit like "teaching at the > >table", something which it is my understanding is not acceptable? I grant you > >that knowing what really is "general bridge knowledge" is often difficult (at > >least for me!) and I suppose that one should err on the side of more disclosure > >rather than less, but at some point one might be giving information to opponents > >that they (a) aren't entitled by law to be given by our side and (b) ought to be > >able to figure out for themselves. If they *should* be able to take advantage of > >some bit of knowledge they ought to be able to figure out for themselves, but > >can't not because we don't fully disclose our special agreements, but instead > >because we don't tell them that bit of knowledge, are we really not playing "in > >the spirit of the game"? > > > >It seems to me there's a line there somewhere, but damned if I can figure out > >where it is. > > I think that a response to Stayman is a good example of the line. In > my view a 2H response to Stayman shows four cards, and that is > sufficient explanation generally. It is not reasonable for an opponent > to infer anything about which suit is bid without finding out. > > But it is reasonable to let the opponent find out. If he wants to > know he can ask. Despite Full Disclosure as a principle, you do not > want an unreasonable amount of noise to spoil the game, and to > continuously give overlong explanations does little good. > > Of course we want players to tell the truth when asking a question > about system. But not all the truth! It would take too long! > > -- > 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 Sat Mar 9 08:09:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28L9G123920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 08:09:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g28L96H23882 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 08:09:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.43.127] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16jRS7-0007lB-00; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 20:59:00 +0000 Message-ID: <007101c1c6e4$8b579320$ee0ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 21:01:41 -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: Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 2:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Questions > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > > > >But in the blml hair-splitting tradition, I note that the > >Scope and Interpretation specifically states that > >headings are not part of the Laws. > > > >Therefore, "Correct Procedure" has no Lawful definition, > >so Law 74A3 is technically meaningless. > +=+ The Scope & *Interpretation* also states that what the laws set out defines correct procedure. If it applies to the one statement it applies to 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 Sat Mar 9 08:12:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28LBo624335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 08:11:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.midtechnologies.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28LBfH24319 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 08:11:42 +1100 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:05:05 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CC@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'BLML '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 16:05:01 -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 The version on the ACBL website has been corrected. -----Original Message----- From: Brambledown To: BLML Sent: 3/7/02 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 66A - inspection of tricks > Grattan Endicott writes: > +=+ I confirm that the official Laws of Duplicate Contract > Bridge 1997 do not include the words "for his inspection". > Inclusion of these words would appear to be an error in > translation from the English. No change was made in Law > 66A from the 1987 Code to the 1997 Code. Agreed, but the words "... for his inspection" *do* appear in the 1975 Laws, so it would not appear to be just a question of translation. Chas Fellows (Brambledown) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 08:15:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28LF9T24741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 08:15:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g28LExH24716 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 08:14:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.96.177]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GSO00G8OAK260@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:04:53 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 23:03:04 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" To: Herman De Wael Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <005801c1c6e4$b9f0e560$b365003e@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: <016701c1c6b1$6fd007a0$138d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> <3C88E932.40101@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "since I don't think anytthing was wrong. But to cover yourself" What else do you need nowadays in bridge, maybe a body guard. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 6:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" > Yet another problem that is best solved by the DeWael School. > > Peter Gill wrote: > > > I was given this problem from the Gold Coast Pairs Congress Final. > > > > One of Australia's top pairs arrive at your table for the umpteenth > > time. They place their CCs in front of you and your partner, and you are > > surprised to see that they are now playing 'Relays with Short Club' > > instead of "Relays with Strong Club". For over 15 years, they have > > played Strong Club against you. > > > > > Any takers on the fact that they should have told this before > beginning. I would, as TD, put any blame of misinformation on this pair. > > > > 1C may be void in clubs but is now 12+ points instead of 15+ points. > > You look up and LHO has opened 1C so it is too late to tell partner. > > > I agree with this statement but, since I believe opps are at fault, I > would allow you to pass some Info to your partner without considering > it UI. > > > You are almost certain that partner would have bothered to look at > > their CC, although you saw nothing of what partner did with their CC. > > > > RHO alerts 1C, partner bids 1S without asking, and RHO passes. > > 1S would have been "majors or minors" if 1C were 15+, but is > > natural versus the 12+ 1C. You hold: KQJxxx, Jx, Qxx, Jx. > > > > Even without looking at your hand, you are 98% sure that partner's > > style is to be unaware of the opponents' new methods and thus he > > has "majors or minors". Your spade holding makes you 99.99% sure. > > > > Should you alert 1S? > > [its artifical meaning is alertable, its natural meaning is not > > alertable.] > > > The dWS says that you should explain as partner intended it. > That way, opponents have a correct view of partner's hand, and after > all, you are not certain that this is MI, are you ? > > > > > > You pass. LHO bids 2H, passed to your 2S, all pass. > > > > > There might be UI issues here, because you know what partner has by > the fact (UI) that he has not looked at opps CC. But since I am > blaming them, I will let you off the hook on this one. > > Belgium has a regulation that you are obliged to TELL opponents your basic system > > A CC in itself is not enough. > > > > Should you make a comment before you put dummy down? Either > > for legal reasons, or to prevent the opponents being mystified by > > your lack of enterprise, or not at all? Partner, of course, had the > > minors, just as you *knew* he did. > > > > > I would make the comment before tabling, but after the lead, since I > don't think anything was wrong. But to cover yourself. > > > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 10:40:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g28NdrG19081 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 10:39:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g28NdhH19044 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 10:39:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-adsl-216-37-229-47.epix.net [216.37.229.47]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2001112001/PL) with SMTP id g28NTU7D015783 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2002 18:29:41 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 18:29:40 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <01bf01c1c595$64586c40$e216b9d2@laptop> <004401c1c5ae$273ee820$3c0ce150@dodona> <002401c1c5c3$1db3c5e0$8d16b9d2@laptop> <003201c1c6e1$c44545e0$ee0ce150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003201c1c6e1$c44545e0$ee0ce150@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, 8 Mar 2002 20:38:54 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"Oh little town of Bethlehem, >How still we see thee lie, >Above thy deep and dreamless sleep >The silent stars go by." [Phillips Brooks] >~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Wayne Burrows" >To: >Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 10:30 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) > > >> >> I take the view that every regulation preventing a >> pair playing some system or other takes away >> from rather than adds to our game. >> >> Wayne >> >+=+ So Wayne, > Am I wrong to surmise you believe you should >be allowed to play anything you fancy in each and >every tournament? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Wayne can answer for himself whether that's what he thinks - but I'd certainly defend the view that there should be some events, *NOT* just the finals of a couple of major competitions, where it's open licence on systems. There is an enormous difference between preventing a pair playing a system in SOME competitions, e.g. beginner or novice events, or even standard events for the really destructive HUMs, and preventing a pair playing a system in (effectively) ALL competitions. Maybe genuine "open system" events have been tried and failed. Apart from the last few rounds of the Gold Cup, etc, when you could play Experimental licences (still not open system), I certainly can't remember reading of any in almost 25 years of playing bridge in the UK. My last two counties wouldn't even run restricted licence events, let alone open licence! As it is, online bridge has become the refuge of the bidding experimentalists. On OKBridge (the only online service with which I'm familiar), the rules are that you can play ANY system subject to full disclosure. Probably the only practical solution for an international bridge game, of course, can you imagine the problems of (for example) trying to get the Aussies to accept the enormously restrictive ACBL GCC? 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 Mar 9 18:03:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2972Vw14281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 18:02:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05ps.bigpond.com (mta05ps.bigpond.com [144.135.25.137]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2972NH14262 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 18:02:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([144.135.25.72]) by mta05ps.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GSP1R500.8O6 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 16:52:17 +1000 Received: from 144.138.141.87 ([144.138.141.87]) by PSMAM02.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 74/1035733); 09 Mar 2002 16:52:12 Message-ID: <000201c1c736$ee0438a0$578d8a90@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 09:45:05 +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: >Yet another problem that is best solved by the DeWael School. > >Peter Gill wrote: > >> I was given this problem from the Gold Coast Pairs Congress Final. >> >> One of Australia's top pairs arrive at your table for the umpteenth >> time. They place their CCs in front of you and your partner, and you are >> surprised to see that they are now playing 'Relays with Short Club' >> instead of "Relays with Strong Club". For over 15 years, they have >> played Strong Club against you..... > >Any takers on the fact that they should have told this before >beginning. I would, as TD, put any blame of misinformation on this pair. Mmm - it's not that simple. As it happens, they switched systems over 12 months earlier, and the two pairs, being from different cities, happen not to have played each other for over twelve months. Furthermore, in Australia the Regulations put the obligation on the other pair to check the CC and know the opponents' basic system. In this particular case, even that is complicated by the fact that the 12+, unless closely examined, is scrawled so that it looks a bit like 15+. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 9 19:57:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g298v9c04632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 19:57:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6.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 g298v0H04611 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 19:57:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.4 (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 g298kuu12425 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:46:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 03:31:36 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020309034656-r01010800-f2926eac-0904-0108@192.168.1.4> 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 3/8/02 at 4:49 PM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > I much prefer the above explanation to the alternative > sequence - > > North: "3D" > East: "Tell me about your preempting style." > South: "It's just a preempt." > East: "Can you be more specific?" > South: "Just a standard preempt." Right about here, I'd call the director. > East: "Define a standard preempt." > South: "The dictionary says Pre- means before, and -empt means..." Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 10 02:42:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g29Fg2h27467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 02:42:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g29FfqH27441 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 02:41:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d352.iae.nl [212.61.5.98]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 12FD320F5A for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 16:31:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <008201c1c77f$5b605b20$fd033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000001c1c654$209d0b40$042928c4@john> Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 16:28:18 +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 John, Law40E2, quite my opinion. But see also the lead of Law16 and Law73A1. According to me it is in the Laws! Using opponents CC is not using physical material of the OPs, but using other extraneous information through reading the "own" agreements sothat there is a sure way of communication/understanding. It is a good thing that SO's have an additional regulation; players are not familiar with the Laws. Assuming that they read the regulations. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "BLML" Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 3:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] disclosure 2 > Hi Ton, > > The SO should have regulations in place for disclosure, depending on the > level of the event. In high level competition, there would be pre-filing of > systems > and a systems guru. As well, there would be lineups submitted, effectively > negating the possibility. > > However, in a more open environment, CC's are exchanged at the table and > lineups are a free for all unless teams have a seating problem. As everyone > has mentioned, you would need to obtain a copy from the opposing pair at > the other table for the strategy to be effective. > > Given that you and your teammates could arrange to have a copy of the CC's, > I would not see a problem with it other than the "convention disruption" it > may > cause. Of course, time could be a major factor as well if you need to study > the > CC to learn the system. > > In a Pairs event, the opponents have a CC at the table, but you do NOT! > There > is no way that an SO will consider that "we play the same system as you do" > to > be a correctly filled out CC. (neither will the TD!) > > As an opponent, I would lose my 40E2 right to refer to the opponent's CC at > my turn to call or play. I would not be able to refer to my CC as per 40E2, > and > that puts me at a disadvantage to the rest of the room on these deals. It > could > also be considered to be in violation of 74A2. > > John > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A." > To: > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:56 AM > Subject: [BLML] disclosure 2 > > > | I received a what I consider to be an interesting question. > | Is it allowed to play the system of your opponents? So you bring your > filled > | out convention card to the table which only says: we play the same system > as > | you do. The reason for this question is worth mentioning as well. Consider > a > | multi session teams event in which a team after 3 sessions is comfortably > | ahead. They don't need swings anymore, so adopting their opponents system > | gives the highest expectation of washes. > | But the question is meant generally. In a pairs event it means that this > | pair changes sysytems every round. > | > | I know that a sponsoring organization could forbid it by regulation, but > | what if it didn't? Don't get lost in details, I know the problem of 2 > pairs > | with this same strategy meeting each other. > | > | ton > | -- > | ======================================================================== > | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > | A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 10 07:36:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g29KZkk15471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 07:35:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g29KZcH15455 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 07:35:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 17498 invoked by uid 504); 9 Mar 2002 20:15:44 -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 1.327792 secs); 09 Mar 2002 20:15:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.142) by 0 with SMTP; 9 Mar 2002 20:15:42 -0000 Message-ID: <008401c1c7a8$38c8c740$8e16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Steve Willner" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <200203041642.LAA09237@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001401c1c50b$1a894380$ad32e150@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:23:02 +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: Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "This is an ex-parrot" [ M.P.F.C. ] > + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Willner" > To: > Sent: 04 March 2002 16:42 > Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? > > > > > > I'm curious... the bid is only illegal because of a > > 2-point range discrepancy on the 5-5 minors. > > The agreement was 8-11, but if it had been 10-11, > > the 2D convention would have been completely > > legal. > > > +=+ Could you please amplify what you are saying, > Steve? 10-11 is not 'a strong option' such as is > referred to in the exclusion from what is brown > sticker. Do we have a different definition of > brown sticker in force ? +=+ This is what I found at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/rt/wbfsyspo.html on a link from David Stevenson's page. "BROWN STICKER CONVENTIONS AND TREATMENTS 1. The following conventions or treatments are categorized as " Brown Sticker". (a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: (i) could be weak (may by agreement he made with values below average strength); and (ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. " It appears BSC only requires below average strength. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 10 11:05:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2A04M223675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 11:04:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2A04CH23654 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 11:04:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16jqex-0009Zm-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 09 Mar 2002 23:54:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 02:42:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) References: <01bf01c1c595$64586c40$e216b9d2@laptop> <004401c1c5ae$273ee820$3c0ce150@dodona> <002401c1c5c3$1db3c5e0$8d16b9d2@laptop> <003201c1c6e1$c44545e0$ee0ce150@dodona> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >Maybe genuine "open system" events have been tried and failed. >Apart from the last few rounds of the Gold Cup, etc, when you >could play Experimental licences (still not open system), I >certainly can't remember reading of any in almost 25 years of >playing bridge in the UK. My last two counties wouldn't even run >restricted licence events, let alone open licence! At one time Crockfords was a round robin qualifying in various centres, followed by four rounds of knockout, followed by an eight team round robin. HUMs were allowed in the knockout rounds. When this was killed off the basic reason given was "For people to continually be playing against HUMs seems unacceptable in such a competition." Note the word continually: that was definitely the flavour of the argument. Two small notes: someone worked out that with the number of teams competing and the number of people playing HUMs in the last year it was permitted, a pair would expect to meet a HUM system on average once every seventy years. As a definition of continually ... Furthermore, the people who decided never asked the opinion of the one pair who really mattered. One and only one pair played against a HUM system that year. No-one asked them their opinion, of course. Actually, they said it was great fun: they had had a team meeting a few days before to discuss a defence to it, and they and their team-mates had looked forward to it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 10 13:07:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2A26pQ16001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:06:51 +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 g2A26hH15975 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 13:06:43 +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 UAA20687 for ; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 20:56:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA19768 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Mar 2002 20:56:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 9 Mar 2002 20:56:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203100156.UAA19768@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Wayne Burrows" > This is what I found at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/rt/wbfsyspo.html ... These appear to be the WBF rules. According to the original post, the Austrian rules are different. (I have no idea whether that's true but have no reason to believe it's false.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 10 17:07:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2A66ab01000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:06:36 +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 g2A66QH00981 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:06:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from kdr1200 (o-airlock074.esatclear.ie [194.165.168.74]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA27648 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 05:56:16 GMT From: "Karel" To: "'BLML '" Subject: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 05:52:01 -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 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CC@al21.minfod.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pairs Vul vs not S x Bidding LHO pd RHO U H xx P P 2S(1) 3NT D K9xxx all pass C A9xxx (1) 5 spades 4+ minor 5-10pts (tartan) S KQJ H Axx opening lead a spade make 12 tricks (see below) D AQJx C KQx It turns out RHO has S T9xxx H Jx C xxx D Jxx You Call the Td and claim that this is an illegal bid as the bid does not conform to the convention range or shape. Over a normal 2NT opener you feel 6D would be reached. NB - 3NT+3 is probably about an 80% anyway as the normal heart lead holds it to +2. Whats the ruling. K. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 10 20:31:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2A9U5J07444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 20:30:06 +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-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 g2A9TuH07413 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 20:29:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.142.140] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16jzQk-000GYR-00; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:15:50 +0000 Message-ID: <001001c1c815$32e7b940$8c8e403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Steve Willner" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <200203041642.LAA09237@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001401c1c50b$1a894380$ad32e150@pacific> <008401c1c7a8$38c8c740$8e16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:20:50 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > > (a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades >that: > (i) could be weak (may by agreement he made with > values below average strength); and > (ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known > suit. " > > It appears BSC only requires below average strength. > > Wayne > +=+ The Multi 2D is inherently BS because when weak it does not have a guaranteed 'anchor' suit of at least four cards. (It can be either H or S). It is 'saved' by an exception. See Exception 2 below. Here is the relevant statement (WBF Systems Policy): -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "The following conventions or treatments are categorized as 'Brown Sticker': (a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: (i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND (ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. EXCEPTIONS: 1. The bid always shows at least four cards in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker convention.) 2. A two level opening in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet. (b) etc. etc. ...................... " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The point, Wayne, is that any types other than weak that are included in the Multi must be a king or more above average strength; the Policy includes in its definitions section that 'strong' = high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand. For clarity I have numbered the exceptions. ~ 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 Mar 10 21:22:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2AAMVa17000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:22:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2AAMLH16975 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:22:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20864 invoked by uid 504); 10 Mar 2002 10:02:24 -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 2.45769 secs); 10 Mar 2002 10:02:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.175) by 0 with SMTP; 10 Mar 2002 10:02:21 -0000 Message-ID: <01ff01c1c81b$b4e715c0$8e16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <200203041642.LAA09237@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001401c1c50b$1a894380$ad32e150@pacific> <008401c1c7a8$38c8c740$8e16b9d2@laptop> <001001c1c815$32e7b940$8c8e403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 23:09:44 +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: Wayne Burrows ; Grattan Endicott ; Steve Willner Cc: bridge-laws Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 10:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? > > Grattan Endicott ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > "Oh little town of Bethlehem, > How still we see thee lie, > Above thy deep and dreamless sleep > The silent stars go by." [Phillips Brooks] > ~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~ > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > (a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades > >that: > > (i) could be weak (may by agreement he made with > > values below average strength); and > > (ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known > > suit. " > > > > It appears BSC only requires below average strength. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ The Multi 2D is inherently BS because when weak > it does not have a guaranteed 'anchor' suit of at least > four cards. (It can be either H or S). It is 'saved' by > an exception. See Exception 2 below. > Here is the relevant statement (WBF Systems > Policy): > -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - - - - > "The following conventions or treatments are > categorized as 'Brown Sticker': > (a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three > spades that: > (i) could be weak (may by agreement be made > with values below average strength) AND > (ii) does not promise at least four cards in a > known suit. > EXCEPTIONS: > 1. The bid always shows at least four cards in a > known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a > known four card suit it must show a hand a king or > more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all > the weak meanings show at least four cards in one > known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand > with a king or more above average strength, it is > not a Brown Sticker convention.) > 2. A two level opening in a minor showing a weak > two in either major, whether with or without strong > hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions > Booklet. > (b) etc. etc. ...................... " > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > - - - - - - > The point, Wayne, is that any types other than weak > that are included in the Multi must be a king or more > above average strength; the Policy includes in its > definitions section that 'strong' = high card strength > a king or more greater than that of an average hand. > For clarity I have numbered the exceptions. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Then this bid is simply not a multi as defined in the regulations. So we go to the generic brown sticker regulations. This bid is a BSC not because it is a multi but because it could be weak (weak major or weak minor two-suiter) and because it does not promise at least four-cards in any particular suit and because it does not meet the requirement for an exception. Incidently the statement: " 2. A two level opening in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet." does not mention the possibility or not of having other weak options but I guess that the "as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet" would eliminate that possibility. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 10 22:00:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2AB0V122751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:00:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g2AB0MH22724 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:00:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.21.130] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16k0u3-000OD4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 10:50:12 +0000 Message-ID: <002801c1c821$d5a94200$8215e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200203100156.UAA19768@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 10:33:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > This is what I found at http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/rt/wbfsyspo.html > ... > > These appear to be the WBF rules. According to > the original post, the Austrian rules are different. > (I have no idea whether that's true but have no > reason to believe it's false.) > -- +=+ I have no reason to doubt the statement of an Austrian director that in Austria the strong types must be average strength or better. The WBF position is different and the European Bridge League follows the WBF (but domestically a European NBO is free to regulate as it wishes). I do not think Wayne is referring to Austria alone in his posts. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 10 22:27:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2ABQwW26857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:26:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g2ABQmH26818 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:26:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.5.55] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16k1Jd-000EzY-00; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 11:16:38 +0000 Message-ID: <004601c1c825$86f91320$8215e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Grattan Endicott" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <200203041642.LAA09237@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001401c1c50b$1a894380$ad32e150@pacific> <008401c1c7a8$38c8c740$8e16b9d2@laptop> <001001c1c815$32e7b940$8c8e403e@dodona> <01ff01c1c81b$b4e715c0$8e16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brown Sticker - what now? Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 11:04:57 -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 > > > > > -- > > EXCEPTIONS: > > 1. The bid always shows at least four cards in a > > known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a > > known four card suit it must show a hand a king or > > more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all > > the weak meanings show at least four cards in one > > known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand > > with a king or more above average strength, it is > > not a Brown Sticker convention.) > ------------- \x/ ------------ > Then this bid is simply not a multi as defined in the > regulations. > > So we go to the generic brown sticker regulations. > > This bid is a BSC not because it is a multi but because > it could be weak (weak major or weak minor two-suiter) > and because it does not promise at least four-cards in > any particular suit and because it does not meet the > requirement for an exception. > +=+ Rather is it the other way round; the Multi is a BS but subject to an exception if it meets the conditions. But either way the version discussed may be legal in Austria but not where WBF or EBL regulations apply. +=+ > Incidently the statement: > " 2. A two level opening in a minor showing a weak > two in either major, whether with or without strong > hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions > Booklet." > > does not mention the possibility or not of having other > weak options but I guess that the "as described in the > WBF Conventions Booklet" would eliminate that > possibility. > +=+ Yes. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 10 22:37:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2ABbAK28736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:37:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2ABb1H28712 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 22:37:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-adsl-199-224-119-40.epix.net [199.224.119.40]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2001112001/PL) with SMTP id g2ABQj7D028164 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:26:56 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 06:26:55 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <01bf01c1c595$64586c40$e216b9d2@laptop> <004401c1c5ae$273ee820$3c0ce150@dodona> <002401c1c5c3$1db3c5e0$8d16b9d2@laptop> <003201c1c6e1$c44545e0$ee0ce150@dodona> 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, 9 Mar 2002 02:42:53 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > Furthermore, the people who decided never asked the opinion of the one >pair who really mattered. One and only one pair played against a HUM >system that year. No-one asked them their opinion, of course. >Actually, they said it was great fun: they had had a team meeting a few >days before to discuss a defence to it, and they and their team-mates >had looked forward to it. > This mirrors my experience in my few months of playing MOSCITO on OKBridge (all right, I know MOSCITO isn't a genuine HUM, but it was near enough to one to a large percentage of the opponents I met up with). A small percentage ran at the first sight of the CC. Most people were prepared to play against it, provided they were allowed to discuss defences as needed, and a significant number said they'd enjoyed the novelty of playing against something different. I don't think NCBOs should be allowed to ban any system *outright*. Restrict it to certain events, by all means, provided the number of such events is required to be significantly greater than zero. I don't think anyone is arguing for beginners to be *compulsorily* exposed to HUMs, but the chance to try out unusual systems in serious competition should be available to all. When running multiple events in parallel, I don't see why there shouldn't be one "open systems" event. provided sufficient entries are received of course. 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 Mar 11 04:29:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2AHT8525887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 04:29:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2AHSsH25856 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 04:28:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.65.34] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16k6xy-0008Mo-00; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:18:39 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c1c857$82c764a0$2241e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "Antonio Riccardi" , "Bill Schoder" , "Bill Segraves" , "David Burn" , "European Bridge League" , "Gill Pain" , "grandeval" , "Nick Doe" , "Simon Jones" , "ton kooijman" Subject: [BLML] Cyaxares in a coma. Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 17:16:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:38:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc664387-b.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp259921pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.55.147.239]) by mtaout45-02.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Feb 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GSS00K72EUPUO@mtaout45-02.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:28:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 21:26:31 -0500 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020308135036.00a4c1d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: Alain Gottcheiner , bridge-laws Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020310211811.00a2d7b0@mail.comcast.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:08 PM 3/8/02 +0100, Alain Gottcheiner writes: >Dar blmlists, > >I would like to tell you about a curious case from yesterday night. In my >opionion, it shows that the classical notion of 'self-serving >argument' shouldn't be applied without due consideration. It's really a problem with the connotation of "self-serving argument." A self-serving statement should not be rejected automatically, but it should be given less weight because it is an argument which it is in the player's own interest to make. For example, if South makes a bid, North explains it, and South's hand does not conform to the agreement, E-W may claim misinformation. If South says that the explanation was correct and he misbid, that is a self-serving statement which should not normally be accepted. But in your example, the convention card provided additional evidence that South's bid was properly explained, and South had a demonstrable bridge reason for making the irregular bid. In one particular case, self-serving arguments must be ignored. If North passes UI, and South says, "I would have bid this way even without the UI," the self-serving argument is irrelevant, because that is not the appropriate standard; if South had an LA to the bid suggested by the UI, he should have taken 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 Mon Mar 11 17:22:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2B6Lqg12697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:21:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2B6LiH12683 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:21:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA18893 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:23:55 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:09:54 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:05:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/03/2002 05:10:09 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: [big snip] >Furthermore, in Australia the Regulations put the >obligation on the other pair to check the CC and >know the opponents' basic system. Not so. The relevant quote from the ABF pre-alert reg is: "At the start of the round, players have a responsibility to inform their opponents of: Basic system, including the minimum suit length and strength of one level openings; Strength and style of the 1NT opening; Any unusual two and higher level opening bids." In the specific case Peter Gill wrote about at the start of this thread, it appears that the "Relays with Short Club" pair thought that displaying their system card satisfied the ABF pre-alert reg. I disagree, so perhaps the ABF could clarify this reg by inserting the adjective "verbally" before the word "inform". Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 11 18:52:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2B7pig27828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:51:44 +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-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 g2B7pZH27813 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:51:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.83.88] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16kKN3-000AZe-00; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:37:25 +0000 Message-ID: <002201c1c8d0$9fdd0760$a906e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David J. Grabiner" , "Alain Gottcheiner" , "bridge-laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020310211811.00a2d7b0@mail.comcast.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 07:43:12 -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: "Alain Gottcheiner" ; "bridge-laws" Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving > > In one particular case, self-serving arguments must > be ignored. If North passes UI, and South says, "I > would have bid this way even without the UI," the > self-serving argument is irrelevant, because that is > not the appropriate standard; if South had an LA > to the bid suggested by the UI, he should have >taken it. > +=+ Your whole statement is valuable, but I commend especially this last part of it. The point deals with an argument used by some players who make no attempt to comply with the law. Where they should know better a nudge from the director is appropriate. ~ 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 Mar 11 20:11:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2B9BSn13358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:11:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp014.mail.yahoo.com (smtp014.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.58]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2B9BIH13334 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:11:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from opaf (AUTH login) at unknown (HELO pournaras) (opaf@212.205.99.24) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2002 09:01:12 -0000 Message-ID: <00a001c1c8db$4bf2c940$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:01:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 ----- > You Call the Td and claim that this is an illegal bid as the bid does not > conform to the convention range or shape. Over a normal 2NT opener you feel > 6D would be reached. > > NB - 3NT+3 is probably about an 80% anyway as the normal heart lead holds it > to +2. > > Whats the ruling. ---------------------------- Since 3NT over 2S is much like a 2NT opening, why do opponents protest? Anyway I would rule according to law 40A (Right to choose call or play) and 75B (Violations of partnership agreements). Provided there's no habitual violations, I believe the score stands. T. Pournaras _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 11 22:54:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BBrq812693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:53:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2BBrfH12667 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:53:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16kODA-000I2E-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:43:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:26:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CC@al21.minfod.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel writes >Pairs Vul vs not > >S x Bidding LHO pd RHO U >H xx P P 2S(1) 3NT >D K9xxx all pass >C A9xxx > (1) 5 spades 4+ minor 5-10pts (tartan) > >S KQJ >H Axx opening lead a spade make 12 tricks (see below) >D AQJx >C KQx > > >It turns out RHO has > >S T9xxx >H Jx >C xxx >D Jxx > >You Call the Td and claim that this is an illegal bid as the bid does not >conform to the convention range or shape. Over a normal 2NT opener you feel >6D would be reached. > >NB - 3NT+3 is probably about an 80% anyway as the normal heart lead holds it >to +2. > >Whats the ruling. What is illegal about it? Why was it bid? If it was a psyche then surely it is legal, unless there is some relevant regulation making that 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 Mar 12 00:01:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BD1Bi25502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:01:11 +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 g2BD0wH25461 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:00:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.71.132] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16kPGJ-000N5d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:50:47 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c1c8fb$41bf7f20$8447e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:48:20 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 11 March 2002 07:05 Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" > > I disagree, so perhaps the ABF could clarify this > reg by inserting the adjective "verbally" before > the word "inform". > > Best wishes > > Richard > +=+ This is a dangerous statement. I would think it commonplace for partnerships to consider that consigning the CC at the start of the round fulfils the requirement for prior disclosure. The particular case was unfortunate in that I did not consider the pair who handed over their CC was at fault, yet I understood the way in which their opponents met with a difficulty. Largely because of the long interval without having played against each other. The only thought that occurred to me was that any space on the CC for disclosure of important matters could have shown the method, perhaps should have. If it did then the pair have done all that should reasonably have been expected of them (and their opponents should not complain). ~ 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 Mar 12 00:01:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BD1BV25500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:01:11 +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 g2BD0vH25460 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:00:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.71.132] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16kPGH-000N5d-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:50:46 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c1c8fb$40fdb5c0$8447e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CC@al21.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:36:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 11 March 2002 00:26 Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling > > What is illegal about it? Why was it bid? > If it was a psyche then surely it is legal, unless > there is some relevant regulation making that > illegal. > +=+ or sufficient partnership experience to establish an implicit agreement. ~ 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 Mar 12 00:19:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BDJQP27845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:19:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hera.fmg.uva.nl (hera.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2BDJIH27834 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:19:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from jppals (jppals.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.182]) by hera.fmg.uva.nl (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g2BD8vG21412 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:08:57 +0100 (MET) From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:06:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Karel writes > >Pairs Vul vs not > > > >S x Bidding LHO pd RHO U > >H xx P P 2S(1) 3NT > >D K9xxx all pass > >C A9xxx > > (1) 5 spades 4+ minor 5-10pts (tartan) > > > >S KQJ > >H Axx opening lead a spade make 12 > tricks (see below) > >D AQJx > >C KQx > > > > > >It turns out RHO has > > > >S T9xxx > >H Jx > >C xxx > >D Jxx > > > >You Call the Td and claim that this is an > illegal bid as the bid does not > >conform to the convention range or shape. Over > a normal 2NT opener you feel > >6D would be reached. > > > >NB - 3NT+3 is probably about an 80% anyway as > the normal heart lead holds it > >to +2. > > > >Whats the ruling. David Stevenson wrote: > What is illegal about it? Why was it bid? If > it was a psyche then surely it is legal, unless > there is some relevant regulation making that > illegal. If this happened in the Netherlands (as I believe it did), then it is illegal. If you announce Tartan (= 5M / 5+m) or Muiderberg (= 5M / 4+m) on your CC, any deviation from the specific shape of these opening bids is not allowed. JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 00:40:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BDe5r00348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:40:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2BDdwH00344 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 00:39:58 +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 OAA19261; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:27:06 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA21386; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:29:50 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311142530.00a506f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:34:14 +0100 To: "Karel" , "'BLML '" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling In-Reply-To: References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CC@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 05:52 10/03/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >Pairs Vul vs not > >S x Bidding LHO pd RHO U >H xx P P 2S(1) 3NT >D K9xxx all pass >C A9xxx > (1) 5 spades 4+ minor 5-10pts (tartan) > >S KQJ >H Axx opening lead a spade make 12 tricks (see below) >D AQJx >C KQx > > >It turns out RHO has > >S T9xxx >H Jx >C xxx >D Jxx > > >You Call the Td and claim that this is an illegal bid as the bid does not >conform to the convention range or shape. Over a normal 2NT opener you feel >6D would be reached. AG : unless there are COC that severely restrict the use of psyches, this bid doesn't seem illegal to me. You might call the TD and ask for the psyche to be registered, of course. Even so, the opponents could, from the next session on, decide they play 2M = 5 cards in the suit, 0-10 HCP, usually not 6 cards (else 2D), never 4AM I don't know about overseas regulation, but in most European countries this will be perectly legal. The only thing that wouldn't would be to repeatedly open those hands with 2S and continue telling it shows a 2-suiter in the 5-10 range. BTW, it isn't difficult to reach 6D after the bidding started this way. Assuming 3NT shows a very strong balanced hand, most pairs play "2NT systemic responses on" ; thus partner may bid 4S for minors. NB : there is at least one partner with whom I play, explain and note on the CC that a 2S opening shows '5S/4+M, about 6-11 range, but at green or 3rd may be shaded : 0-11 HCP, 5+ cards, anything goes'. Some told us it was wild (thanks for the compliment), but nobody has ever questioned the bid's legality. 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 Mar 12 01:28:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BERec00375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 01:27:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from florence.ie.alphyra.com (IDENT:b041Ssz2gdT4O6UKeR31S9ryPUTC14wb@florence.ie.alphyra.com [193.120.224.170]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2BERWH00371 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 01:27:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from alphyra.ie (yogi.dev.ie.alphyra.com [192.168.1.135]) by florence.ie.alphyra.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2BEHOF25877 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:17:24 GMT Message-ID: <3C8CBC0E.9D687B74@alphyra.ie> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:15:42 +0000 From: James X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid ruling - more info References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21CC@al21.minfod.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020311142530.00a506f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This occurred in Ireland and there is a statement at the botton of all our official convention cards - It is forbidden to psyche a conventional opening. > >Pairs Vul vs not > > > >S x Bidding LHO pd RHO U > >H xx P P 2S(1) 3NT > >D K9xxx all pass > >C A9xxx > > (1) 5 spades 4+ minor 5-10pts (tartan) > > > >S KQJ > >H Axx opening lead a spade make 12 tricks (see below) > >D AQJx > >C KQx > > > > > >It turns out RHO has > > > >S T9xxx > >H Jx > >C xxx > >D Jxx > > > > > >You Call the Td and claim that this is an illegal bid as the bid does not > >conform to the convention range or shape. Over a normal 2NT opener you feel > >6D would be reached. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 01:55:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BEt6Y00393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 01:55:06 +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 g2BEsvH00389 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 01:54:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2BEiVc21401; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:44:31 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:44:31 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2BEiVb18348; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:44:31 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:44:30 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 OAA01815; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:44:30 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id OAA11167; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:44:29 GMT Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:44:29 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200203111444.OAA11167@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, james@alphyra.ie Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid ruling - more info X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > This occurred in Ireland and there is a statement at the botton of > all our official convention cards - > > It is forbidden to psyche a conventional opening. Do the local regulations specify a penaly for breaking this prohibition? > > >Pairs Vul vs not > > > > > >S x Bidding LHO pd RHO U > > >H xx P P 2S(1) 3NT > > >D K9xxx all pass > > >C A9xxx > > > (1) 5 spades 4+ minor 5-10pts (tartan) > > > > > >S KQJ > > >H Axx opening lead a spade make 12 tricks (see below) > > >D AQJx > > >C KQx > > > > > > > > >It turns out RHO has > > > > > >S T9xxx > > >H Jx > > >C xxx > > >D Jxx > > > > > > > > >You Call the Td and claim that this is an illegal bid as the bid does not > > >conform to the convention range or shape. Over a normal 2NT opener you feel > > >6D would be reached. Is this a psyche (does the local regulations define a psyche)? OK: is it a deliberate and gross deviation? is it a gross deviation? no real HCP, 4 card suit, I'd say yes. is it deliberate? I guess so, it the absence of evidence to the contrary. So I apply the regulation for a forbidden psyche. If there is no regulation, I apply L12A1 which calls for an Assigned Adjusted Score. The NOS will get the most favourable result likely had the irregularity (2S) not occurred: some weighting of 3NT+2, 5D+1, 6D= (I am assuming LHO will lead a heart without the 2S bid), or just 6D= without L12C3. OS will probably get the converse result. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 02:06:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BF5od00411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:05:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from florence.ie.alphyra.com (IDENT:bBoUp3ZytghC9ner+myEzvIhwtBFY6ZG@florence.ie.alphyra.com [193.120.224.170]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2BF5fH00407 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:05:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from alphyra.ie (yogi.dev.ie.alphyra.com [192.168.1.135]) by florence.ie.alphyra.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2BEtYF27528 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:55:34 GMT Message-ID: <3C8CC501.1003B3FE@alphyra.ie> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:53:53 +0000 From: James X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid ruling - more info References: <200203111444.OAA11167@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, I think Fergal (on this list) would have the most current info on this. However in a national competion last weekend, nothing was done about this incident. Furthermore I've never seen a conditions of contest other than for trials in Ireland. In other countries, is there an onus on the organizers to let players know in advance? I think the line I refered to earlier actually reads 'It is forbidden to psyche a conventional bid' Regards, James. Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > This occurred in Ireland and there is a statement at the botton of > > all our official convention cards - > > > > It is forbidden to psyche a conventional opening. > > Do the local regulations specify a penaly for breaking this prohibition? > > > > >Pairs Vul vs not > > > > > > > >S x Bidding LHO pd RHO U > > > >H xx P P 2S(1) 3NT > > > >D K9xxx all pass > > > >C A9xxx > > > > (1) 5 spades 4+ minor 5-10pts (tartan) > > > > > > > >S KQJ > > > >H Axx opening lead a spade make 12 tricks (see below) > > > >D AQJx > > > >C KQx > > > > > > > > > > > >It turns out RHO has > > > > > > > >S T9xxx > > > >H Jx > > > >C xxx > > > >D Jxx > > > > > > > > > > > >You Call the Td and claim that this is an illegal bid as the bid does not > > > >conform to the convention range or shape. Over a normal 2NT opener you feel > > > >6D would be reached. > > Is this a psyche (does the local regulations define a psyche)? > OK: is it a deliberate and gross deviation? > is it a gross deviation? no real HCP, 4 card suit, I'd say yes. > is it deliberate? I guess so, it the absence of evidence to the contrary. > > So I apply the regulation for a forbidden psyche. > > If there is no regulation, I apply L12A1 which calls for an Assigned Adjusted > Score. The NOS will get the most favourable result likely had the irregularity > (2S) not occurred: some weighting of 3NT+2, 5D+1, 6D= (I am assuming LHO will > lead a heart without the 2S bid), or just 6D= without L12C3. OS will probably > get the converse result. > > Robin -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 02:28:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BFSBS00428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:28:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2BFS3H00424 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:28:03 +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 PAA09911 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:17:51 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:17:01 GMT Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c8cca6d.43e6.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.134.232 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 [Karel - replies inline ... ] >> >Pairs Vul vs not >> > >> >S x Bidding LHO pd RHO U >> >H xx P P 2S(1) 3NT >> >D K9xxx all pass >> >C A9xxx >> > (1) 5 spades 4+ minor 5-10pts (tartan) >> > >> >S KQJ >> >H Axx opening lead a spade make 12 tricks (see below) >> >D AQJx >> >C KQx >> > >> >It turns out RHO has >> > >> >S T9xxx >> >H Jx >> >C xxx >> >D Jxx >> > >> >You Call the Td and claim that this is an >> illegal bid as the bid does not >> >conform to the convention range or shape. Over >> a normal 2NT opener you feel >> >6D would be reached. >> >NB - 3NT+3 is probably about an 80% anyway as >> the normal heart lead holds it >> >to +2. [Karel - just a small note here - I checked the score afterward and 3NT+3 recieved 50% score which just goes to show how far the estimated 80% was off. Clearly quite a few people got to 6D making (ie) from a TD's ruling perspective quite a reasonable bid and the top spot Small question on procedure. The TD was called during play when it was discovered the clubs were 3/2 and the diamonds not 4/0. Should he have been called then or should he have been called at the finish of play ??] > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> What is illegal about it? Why was it bid? If >> it was a psyche then surely it is legal, unless >> there is some relevant regulation making that >> illegal. [Karel - As Jan says 2M tartan is a conventional bid with a 5-10 range and 5M\4+m shape. It is illegal to psych a conventional bid in Ireland. The pair in question (an estanlished partnership) had no "If" clause as per Alain's response in their CC (they didn't have a CC actually) and in any event alerted it as "Tartan" (standard meaning as above). Now from the previous brown sticker thread - "why should opps have to deal with such a bid with no prior warning". I am all in favour of allowing "Natural" psyches but surely allowing conventional psyches no matter how close to the actual bid they are is opening a pandora's box. Even if as in Ed's original reply the bid was "(1) mistaken" it is still illegal - you can't allow someone to accidently open an illegal bid. As to Alain's why didn't we get to 6D anyway. Well 3NT over 2S had no agreement and could have been based on a 7+ solid suit (yes in pairs even hearts) and a spade stop. Its to play. Maybe we need to look at this. For pd to move with his hand could be suicidal and more so in pairs scoring. Even if 3NT was 22/23 points it still may not be right to move at pairs unless you agree 4NT by either player is to play. In any event not a sequence discussed in many partnerships I dare say. Possibly dbl is better but the chances of partner rocketing into 4H's is considerable. Interested in Jan's rely - he states that any deviation from the SHAPE of the hand (in the Netherlands) is illegal. What about the point range ?? I believe the ruling in this case should have been 6D making for N/S and E/W. I'm sure you've guessed that the 50% score at the top of this thread means the score was not changed. Discussing the possible hand ruling amongst ourselves, one person suggested a split ruling, 6D N/S, 3NT+3 E/W. Is there a case for this ?? 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 Mar 12 02:30:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BFURV00440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:30:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2BFUIH00436 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 02:30:19 +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 QAA17305; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:17:29 +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 QAA03015; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:20:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311161919.00a5ac20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:24:35 +0100 To: "Jan Peter Pals" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling 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 14:06 11/03/2002 +0100, Jan Peter Pals wrote: >If this happened in the Netherlands (as I believe it did), >then it is illegal. If you announce Tartan (= 5M / 5+m) >or Muiderberg (= 5M / 4+m) on your CC, any deviation >from the specific shape of these opening bids is not >allowed. AG : then the ruling has to be 40/60, or +3/-3 IMPs. The deal is deemed not to have existed, and the NOS would better have let the TD sit in his corner, as is so often the case. But then the pair will alter the meaning of its bid to conform to their newly established style, announcing "crazy 2S, 0-10 HCP, 5+ cards", and what will the opponents have won ? Forgetting this aspects of things, and focusing on the legal aspect, the Dutch rulies mean that, when opponents have been damaged because of their own action (how would they have bid over a Crazy 2S ? Do you really think it would have been different ?), they get the money back when and only when the explanation was too specific. A strange world indeed. A. >JP >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 03:23:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BGMlV00500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:22:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hera.fmg.uva.nl (hera.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2BGMcH00496 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:22:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from jppals (jppals.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.182]) by hera.fmg.uva.nl (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g2BGCIG00190 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:12:18 +0100 (MET) From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:10:09 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: <3c8cca6d.43e6.0@esatclear.ie> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel wrote: > Interested in Jan's rely - he states that any deviation from the SHAPE of the > hand (in the Netherlands) is illegal. What about the point range ?? No problem with point range here. But in the past there was a lot of trouble with players announcing 5M / 4+m weak two (Muiderberg as it is called here) and opening on 5(332) or even 4(432). Of course it is allowed to open a weak two with these shapes, but not to announce it as Muiderberg. So, TD's in the NL are instructed to treat players who psyche or misbid a Muiderberg as offenders (N.B. this rule applies for this convention only!). > I believe the ruling in this case should have been 6D making for N/S and E/W. I would have ruled this way, and let EW appeal if they like to. > Discussing the possible hand ruling amongst ourselves, one person suggested > a split ruling, 6D N/S, 3NT+3 E/W. Is there a case for this ?? Not in my book, EW get the worst result possible. JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 03:47:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BGlKa00517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:47:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2BGlCH00513 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 03:47:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id RAA04758; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:34:22 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id RAA25044; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:37:05 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311173819.00a57b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 X-Priority: 2 (High) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:41:29 +0100 To: karel@esatclear.ie, "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE:ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) In-Reply-To: <3c8cca6d.43e6.0@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 15:17 11/03/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >Now from the previous brown sticker thread - "why should opps have to deal >with >such a bid with no prior warning". I am all in favour of allowing "Natural" >psyches but surely allowing conventional psyches no matter how close to the >actual bid they are is opening a pandora's box. Even if as in Ed's original >reply the bid was "(1) mistaken" it is still illegal - you can't allow someone >to accidently open an illegal bid. AG : message to all TDs : according to Karel, when a poor-eyesighted person places a club in one's spades and opens a Multi on a 5-card, one is liable to an automatical correction of the score. Is that true ? If it is, I'd better retire from active bridge right now. To Herman and other readers in Belgium : what's our rule about that ? I'm not joking, alas. Help ! 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 Mar 12 04:02:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BH23X00534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:02:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 g2BH1sH00530 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 04:01:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16kT1U-0008o3-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:51:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:50:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals writes >> Karel writes >> >Pairs Vul vs not >> > >> >S x Bidding LHO pd RHO U >> >H xx P P 2S(1) 3NT >> >D K9xxx all pass >> >C A9xxx >> > (1) 5 spades 4+ minor 5-10pts (tartan) >> > >> >S KQJ >> >H Axx opening lead a spade make 12 >> tricks (see below) >> >D AQJx >> >C KQx >David Stevenson wrote: > >> What is illegal about it? Why was it bid? If >> it was a psyche then surely it is legal, unless >> there is some relevant regulation making that >> illegal. > >If this happened in the Netherlands (as I believe it did), >then it is illegal. If you announce Tartan (= 5M / 5+m) >or Muiderberg (= 5M / 4+m) on your CC, any deviation >from the specific shape of these opening bids is not >allowed. Wahey! Another reg to upset the 'purists'! Fair enough. Might I remind people how helpful it is to say where you are from: all I know about the original post is that the poster has an Irish eddress. -- 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 Mar 12 05:05:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BI4Zv05696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:04:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2BI4PH05671 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 05:04:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.120]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GST00FH6LQB5A@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:54:13 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:52:59 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: RE:ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) To: Alain Gottcheiner Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003e01c1c925$9657e480$784d003e@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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311173819.00a57b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hear,hear!!! Best regards Israel Erdenbaum Tel aviv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 6:41 PM Subject: RE:ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) > At 15:17 11/03/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: > > >Now from the previous brown sticker thread - "why should opps have to deal > >with > >such a bid with no prior warning". I am all in favour of allowing "Natural" > >psyches but surely allowing conventional psyches no matter how close to the > >actual bid they are is opening a pandora's box. Even if as in Ed's original > >reply the bid was "(1) mistaken" it is still illegal - you can't allow someone > >to accidently open an illegal bid. > > AG : message to all TDs : according to Karel, when a poor-eyesighted person > places a club in one's spades and opens a Multi on a 5-card, one is liable > to an automatical correction of the score. Is that true ? If it is, I'd > better retire from active bridge right now. > To Herman and other readers in Belgium : what's our rule about that ? I'm > not joking, alas. > > Help ! > > 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 Tue Mar 12 07:09:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BK9DO26436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:09:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from michael.gym ([193.170.68.244]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2BK92H26421 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:09:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from pp-xp (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA16434 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:36:04 -0500 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:58:42 +0100 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <3c8cca6d.43e6.0@esatclear.ie> Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Mailer: Opera 6.0 build 1010 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >[Karel - As Jan says 2M tartan is a conventional bid with a 5-10 range and 5M\4+m >shape. It is illegal to psych a conventional bid in Ireland. The pair in question >(an estanlished partnership) had no "If" clause as per Alain's response in their >CC (they didn't have a CC actually) and in any event alerted it as "Tartan" >(standard meaning as above). > > >Now from the previous brown sticker thread - "why should opps have to deal with >such a bid with no prior warning". I am all in favour of allowing "Natural" >psyches but surely allowing conventional psyches no matter how close to the >actual bid they are is opening a pandora's box. Even if as in Ed's original >reply the bid was "(1) mistaken" it is still illegal - you can't allow someone >to accidently open an illegal bid. > It is, of course, for the SO to regulate the use of conventions (40D), so it is legal for the SO to make the psyching of conventional bids illegal. But: There is no penalty prescribed by the Laws so that a TD will have to apply L12. And I am not yet fully convinced that a board automatically becomes unplayable, or that a SO may legally advise TDs that it is to be deemed unplayable, after a convention has been illegally used. Regards, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 07:48:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BKlYb01695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:47:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2BKlOH01664 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:47:25 +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 g2BKbFM11317 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:37:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:34:58 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020311153719-r01010800-bd88c87c-0904-0108@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 [This was supposed to go to the list, but I sent it to Karel only. Sorry, Karel.] Oh, what the heck. I'll put my foot in it. :-) On 3/10/02 at 5:52 AM, karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) wrote: > You Call the Td and claim that this is an illegal bid as the bid does not > conform to the convention range or shape. Over a normal 2NT opener you feel > 6D would be reached. Do I? I think rather I call the director, explain how the bidding went, and suggest that if there is any irregularity by defenders, we may have been damaged and be due redress. I leave it up to him to decide whether the bid was illegal. I see three possibilities here: (1) 2S was a misbid, (2) 2S was a psyche, (3) they have a concealed partnership understanding that 2S may be bid on the hand held. I wasn't there, but I see nothing that leads me to believe that (3) is the case. If (1) is the case, then there has been no irregularity. If (2) is the case, then we look to the laws. But before we get there, we have to ask questions. If the answers indicate that (2) is in fact the case, then to the Laws. Law 40A says that psyches are not, per se, illegal. However, 40D says SOs may regulate conventions, and this 2S bid is conventional. If the SO prohibits psyches of conventional openings (as does the ACBL, for example) then yes, this bid is illegal, as a violation of Law 40D. But Law 40D says nothing of redress. For that, we have to look elsewhere. Law 72B1 says that when a player could have known that his irregularity is likely to damage the other side, TD may award an adjusted score. What score is determined in accordance with Law 12C2, as a score was in fact obtained at the table. In my admittedly inexpert judgement, the 2S bidder "could have known" (unless he's a raw novice, in which case why is he playing Tartan 2s? :), so 72B1 leads us to 12C2. The non-offending side gets the most favorable score that is likely, and the offending side get the most unfavorable score that is at all possible. I think perhaps 6D might be reached (and made) on those hands, so I award that score to both sides. Another TD might judge that reaching 6D is not likely, or that reaching it is likely, but that it's also likely it will go down, so he might award a different score (or scores). So might a committee. > NB - 3NT+3 is probably about an 80% anyway as the normal heart lead holds it > to +2. How many match points a score is worth is, I think, not relevant. The question is which likely score is most favorable to the NOS, and what is the most unfavorable score to the OS which is at all possible. > > Whats the ruling. 6D making both ways, per laws 12C2, 72B1, and 40D (and SO regulations). Provided, of course, that SO regulations make a psyche in this situation illegal. If I'm wrong, I'm sure *somebody* will say so. :-) 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 Mar 12 09:15:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BMFBP15389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:15:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2BMF2H15356 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:15:03 +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 g2BM4rM21624 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:04:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:52:15 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3c8cca6d.43e6.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <20020311170457-r01010800-81d31990-0904-0108@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 3/11/02 at 3:17 PM, karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) wrote: > Even if as in Ed's original > reply the bid was "(1) mistaken" it is still illegal - you can't allow someone > to accidently open an illegal bid. I said it may have been a misbid. The implicit assumption there is that the explanation (that it showed a two suited hand) was correct. In that case, the *agreement* is illegal, and perhaps due a procedural penalty. I'm not sure I understand an argument that says the (mis)bid is itself illegal. > Discussing the possible hand ruling amongst ourselves, one person suggested > a split ruling, 6D N/S, 3NT+3 E/W. Is there a case for this ?? I don't see one. If 6D is "likely" for NS, then it's certainly "at all probable" for EW. And it's more unfavorable for EW than 3NT+3. 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 Mar 12 10:20:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2BNJWV26867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:19:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2BNJNH26841 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:19:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16kYul-000HFb-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:09:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:07:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <3c8cca6d.43e6.0@esatclear.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 Petrus Schuster OSB writes >It is, of course, for the SO to regulate the use of >conventions (40D), so it is legal for the SO to make the >psyching of conventional bids illegal. >But: >There is no penalty prescribed by the Laws so that a TD will >have to apply L12. And I am not yet fully convinced that a >board automatically becomes unplayable, or that a SO may >legally advise TDs that it is to be deemed unplayable, after >a convention has been illegally used. Let us consider the practicalities. Suppose we have a hesitation before a double, such as in the auction 1S P 4S ..X P 5H X AP Now, if we disallow the 5H bid, it is fairly easy to assign a score because we know roughly what is going to happen: no-one is redoubling, or bidding 4NT: in practice 4Sx will be played, so it is just a question of now many tricks are made. If that is difficult L12C2 or L12C3 comes to your aid: the former means you basically assume the most credible number of tricks, the latter a weighting between different numbers. Of course, it is often not so simple. But the important thing is that the auction has started, and even in a more complicated sequence the TD or AC usually has an idea as to where the auction is going. In a sequence such as 1H 2NT 3D 5C X 5D X AP where the 2NT shows D+S but is mis-described as C+D the fact that the auction has some substance gives the TD/AC an idea of how to apply L12C2 or L12C3. If 6H is cold, for example, probably all the TD has to decide is whether there is any reasonable possibility of reaching it after a 1H opening and a conventional overcall. Now compare the problems with illegal conventions. Most SOs regulate little except opening bids, or possibly the first action by the defenders. In effect, many such cases involve illegal opening bids. So, let us look at a case: 2S 2NT 3C 3D P 5D AP Now, suppose the defenders can make 6H: should we assign that score? Ok, well what would have happened without the illegal bid? The auction might have started: P ? Now what? Or 2S [meaning something different from the original 2S] There is just no real basis for assigning scores, because there is no part auction to help you, and this is the norm with this type of case. If you consider the difference between the normal MI or UI case, and the normal illegal convention case, it is far more difficult to use L12C2 or L12C3 in the latter case. Note that the same applies to fielded psyches: since the psych is often an opening bid it effectively destroys the auction and makes the application of L12C2/3 very difficult. As a matter of practicality it has been decided by the EBU that these cases are often unsuitable for assigned scores. So that TDs will not have to struggle to make very difficult assignments they have decided that fielded psyches and illegal conventions mean that "no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board" and thus L12A2 requires an ArtAS under L12C1. While there will be people out there who think this is on [or over] the edge of legality it is a good, practical solution to what is in effect a very difficult problem. The EBU has followed this procedure for many years while receiving hardly any complaints about it. ---------- On a slightly different question I have been asked whether we should change the score when the call is slightly illegal, and the illegal bit was not used. I am sure that we should. Consider a 2S opening, showing various possibilities, let us say a 5-11 minor two-suiter, a weak hand with a long heart suit, or an eight playing trick hand. Suppose that the only illegality concerns the range of the minor two-suiter: 9-11 would be legal. Suppose on the actual hand that 2S was opened with a weak hand with a long heart suit. Have the opponents been damaged by its use? The way to consider damage is to consider what would have happened if the illegal convention had not been used. What would have happened? The answer is that we have no idea whatever. Some people assume that since the weak hand with hearts was legal that the bid would have been made anyway, but this is an unwarranted assumption. For all we know, this pair would have decided to play the Willner 2S opening [6Ds, 4Hs, 17-22] if they had known they could not play the full range of their two-suiter. Remember this is the offending side: there is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. In effect we never know what call would have been made by this pair if they had not used an illegal convention. Furthermore, the bidding by the NOs can easily be affected by different ranges. It all comes back to what I said earlier: when someone uses an illegal convention we have no idea what the auction would have been otherwise. So whenever an illegal convention is used I recommend letting them play the board out, and then changing the score to A+/A- unless the NOs have got more than A+. -- 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 Mar 12 16:14:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2C5CNY26434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:12:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2C5CEH26410 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:12:14 +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 QAA14666 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:14:22 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:00:20 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:55:44 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/03/2002 04:00:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: [snip] >RHO alerts 1C, partner bids 1S without asking, and RHO passes. >1S would have been "majors or minors" if 1C were 15+, but is >natural versus the 12+ 1C. You hold: KQJxxx, Jx, Qxx, Jx. > >Even without looking at your hand, you are 98% sure that partner's >style is to be unaware of the opponents' new methods If the 98% surety is due to pard failing to ask, that surety is gained by UI. >and thus he has "majors or minors". Your spade holding makes you >99.99% sure. On the other hand, your spade holding is AI in determining whether pard has misbid. The opponents' new CC is also AI. >Should you alert 1S? >[its artifical meaning is alertable, its natural meaning is not >alertable.] Alerting 1S is contrary to Law and ABF regulation. L75 gives the opponents merely the right to know your explicit or implicit agreements, not what your pard actually holds. (However, an alert of 1S would be appropriate if pard had previously carelessly confused a short club with a strong club.) >You pass. LHO bids 2H, passed to your 2S, all pass. If you have UI from pard's failure to ask, then your Pass followed by 2S is an improper fielding of a psyche, and the TD should adjust the contract to 4Sx (assuming that 4S does not make). >Should you make a comment before you put dummy down? Either >for legal reasons, or to prevent the opponents being mystified by >your lack of enterprise, or not at all? Partner, of course, had the >minors, just as you *knew* he did. If you acted due to UI, you should immediately call the TD against yourself for violation of L73. If only AI influenced your bidding, then let the opponents be mystified. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 17:33:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2C6XIb09167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:33:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2C6XAH09145 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:33:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA29491 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:35:19 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:21:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:16:41 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/03/2002 05:21:31 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>>From: "David J. Grabiner" >>>In one particular case, self-serving arguments must >>>be ignored. If North passes UI, and South says, "I >>>would have bid this way even without the UI," the >>>self-serving argument is irrelevant, because that is >>>not the appropriate standard; if South had an LA >>>to the bid suggested by the UI, he should have >>>taken it. >>> >>+=+ Your whole statement is valuable, but I commend >>especially this last part of it. The point deals with an >>argument used by some players who make no attempt >>to comply with the law. Where they should know >>better a nudge from the director is appropriate. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ But do some directors need nudging? The CTD of New Zealand, Arie Geursen, wrote (in the latest issue of the Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin): [snip] >"You are in possession of unauthorised information >hence you must now sit and think of all the options that >are available to you and chose the one that is likely to >do you the most damage. Furthermore, if by some quirk of >fate you end up on the right side of the ledger then the >director, or subsequently the appeals committee, will have >a hearty debate to see if they agree with you or if you >have deluded yourself. In which case your score will be >adjusted to the worst result that is at all probable."??!! >You may well ask why play Bridge? > >Or does one give the simple and humanly understandable >instruction that he should bid as he would normally bid, >but that an adjusted score may be awarded if it is deemed >that the opponents have been damaged? This to me seems to >be consistent with the Scope of the Laws, Law 12C3, and >the Code of Practice. If this is not the intention of Law >73C, it ought to be and it should be placed on top of the >list for re-drafting to ensure it is. [snip] My humble opinion, for what it is worth, is that in UI situations you should strive to make the call that a TD and AC would subsequently rule that you should have made anyway. Even if you overdo damage to your side unnecessarily, at least you get an early night rather than the tiresome process of appearing before an AC. :-) Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 18:42:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2C7fgS22380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:41:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g2C7fYH22355 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:41:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.21.141] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16kggo-000Eie-00; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:27:21 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c1c998$637f8cc0$8d15e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Karel" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311173819.00a57b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: RE:ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:22:47 -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: ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 4:41 PM Subject: RE:ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) +=+ 'Ophtalmology' = a case for ophthalmology? :-) sorry! +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 19:04:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2C83oR26284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:03:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2C83fH26265 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:03:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.19.89] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16kh2G-00030A-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:49:29 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c1c99b$7b24aec0$5913e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 07:56:14 -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: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving > > But do some directors need nudging? The CTD of New > Zealand, Arie Geursen, wrote (in the latest issue of the > Australian Bridge Directors' Bulletin): > > [snip] > ------ \x/ ------ > > > >Or does one give the simple and humanly understandable > >instruction that he should bid as he would normally bid, > >but that an adjusted score may be awarded if it is deemed > >that the opponents have been damaged? > +=+ This is not the requirement of the law +=+ > > This to me seems to > >be consistent with the Scope of the Laws, Law 12C3, and > >the Code of Practice. If this is not the intention of Law > >73C, it ought to be and it should be placed on top of the > >list for re-drafting to ensure it is. > +=+ Meanwhile the Law is what it is +=+ > > [snip] > > My humble opinion, for what it is worth, is that in UI > situations you should strive to make the call that a TD > and AC would subsequently rule that you should have made > anyway. Even if you overdo damage to your side > unnecessarily, at least you get an early night rather > than the tiresome process of appearing before an AC. :-) > +=+ The criterion is that the call selected should not be more suggested by the UI than a logical alternative call. This is stated plainly in Law 16A. Mr. Geursen has a duty to abide by the 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 Tue Mar 12 20:17:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2C9GpT07526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:16:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hera.fmg.uva.nl (hera.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2C9GfH07510 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:16:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from jppals (jppals.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.182]) by hera.fmg.uva.nl (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g2C96HG09594 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:06:17 +0100 (MET) From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:04:07 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311161919.00a5ac20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > AG : then the ruling has to be 40/60, or +3/-3 IMPs. The deal is deemed not > to have existed, and the NOS would better have let the TD sit in his > corner, as is so often the case. > But then the pair will alter the meaning of its bid to conform to their > newly established style, announcing "crazy 2S, 0-10 HCP, 5+ cards", and > what will the opponents have won ? Nothing. Except in Karel's case maybe that the East hand would not have been opened :-) The idea behind the Dutch rule is apparently not to protect opps against crazy openings, but to make sure that opps get the proper information (and I say it again: this rule applies for Muiderberg only). JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 12 20:48:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2C9m4q12657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:48:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2C9lsH12619 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:47:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47653.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.37]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2C9beD22863 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:37:41 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C8DCC8C.1040205@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:38:20 +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: ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311173819.00a57b10@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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 15:17 11/03/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: > >> Now from the previous brown sticker thread - "why should opps have to >> deal with >> such a bid with no prior warning". I am all in favour of allowing >> "Natural" >> psyches but surely allowing conventional psyches no matter how close >> to the >> actual bid they are is opening a pandora's box. Even if as in Ed's >> original >> reply the bid was "(1) mistaken" it is still illegal - you can't allow >> someone >> to accidently open an illegal bid. > > > AG : message to all TDs : according to Karel, when a poor-eyesighted > person places a club in one's spades and opens a Multi on a 5-card, one > is liable to an automatical correction of the score. Is that true ? If > it is, I'd better retire from active bridge right now. If the poor-sighted person can convince that he did indeed see 6 spades, then there is no infraction. > To Herman and other readers in Belgium : what's our rule about that ? > I'm not joking, alas. > You mean if you willingly open a Multi on a 5-card spades ? I'm not very certain. I don't believe the current regulation says nothing, but the next one (from 1/9/2002) does : (I've copied the french version, which perhaps more people understand than the dutch one) -L'ouverture de 2. ou 2?, dans laquelle la seule variante faible est un deux faible (six cartes ou eventuellement plus) dans une majeure inconnue ("Multi"), avec ou sans variantes fortes. So Multi on a 5-card suit would be BS. > Help ! > > 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/ > -- 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 Mar 12 22:02:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CB1XV24327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:01:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2CB1NH24309 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:01:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2CAp9a18361 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:51:09 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:51 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving 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: <000901c1c99b$7b24aec0$5913e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > >Or does one give the simple and humanly understandable > >instruction that he should bid as he would normally bid, > >but that an adjusted score may be awarded if it is deemed > >that the opponents have been damaged? > +=+ This is not the requirement of the law +=+ > > This to me seems to > >be consistent with the Scope of the Laws, Law 12C3, and > >the Code of Practice. If this is not the intention of Law > >73C, it ought to be and it should be placed on top of the > >list for re-drafting to ensure it is. > +=+ Meanwhile the Law is what it is +=+ > > [snip] > > My humble opinion, for what it is worth, is that in UI > situations you should strive to make the call that a TD > and AC would subsequently rule that you should have made > anyway. Even if you overdo damage to your side > unnecessarily, at least you get an early night rather > than the tiresome process of appearing before an AC. :-) +=+ The criterion is that the call selected should not be more suggested by the UI than a logical alternative call. This is stated plainly in Law 16A. Mr. Geursen has a duty to abide by the law. Law 16A gives no such guidance to a player in receipt of UI. Law 16A defines the process for dealing with a possible infraction of 73C. Which of course says "When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." If a TD wants to "translate" this into "Try to bid as you normally would, if you are not sure then choose a call that doesn't take advantage of the UI". I could see no objection on legalistic grounds. 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 Mar 12 23:23:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CCNG205399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:23:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2CCN7H05385 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:23:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.45.202] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16kl5I-0005h1-00; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:08:52 +0000 Message-ID: <002801c1c9bf$1f7e6c40$ca2de150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311173819.00a57b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3C8DCC8C.1040205@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:59:17 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: 12 March 2002 09:38 Subject: Re: ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) > > > To Herman and other readers in Belgium : > > what's our rule about that ? I'm not joking, alas. > > > > > You mean if you willingly open a Multi on a 5-card > spades ? I'm not very certain. > > I don't believe the current regulation says nothing, > but the next one (from 1/9/2002) does : (I've copied > the french version, which perhaps more people > understand than the dutch one) > > -L'ouverture de 2. ou 2?, dans laquelle la seule > variante faible est un deux faible (six cartes ou > eventuellement plus) dans une majeure inconnue > ("Multi"), avec ou sans variantes fortes. > > So Multi on a 5-card suit would be BS. > ++==++ I must say that it concerns me that NBOs are changing the terms of the WBF Systems Policy (also adopted by the EBL) - this is the second instance cited this week - and continuing to refer to their product as 'Brown Sticker'. This leads to confusion and I think BS should continue to be only as defined by the WBF, NBO variants being given some other designation. There is no objection to NBOs (in Europe anyway) regulating the subject as they wish; but we should not end up with a term ('Brown Sticker') for which there are a whole variety of definitions. ~ 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 Mar 12 23:28:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CCSUa06014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:28:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2CCSKH05986 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:28:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.16.5] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-4.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16klEC-0000p6-00; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:18:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c1c9bf$d67f7ba0$0510e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:16:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 12 March 2002 10:51 Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving > If a TD wants to "translate" this into "Try to bid as you normally would, > if you are not sure then choose a call that doesn't take advantage of the > UI". I could see no objection on legalistic grounds. > > Tim West-Meads > +=+ The Td does not have that option. He *and the player* are bound by the Law as promulgated. 16A does not leave room for doubt. ~ 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 Mar 12 23:33:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CCX7m06515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:33:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2CCWwH06490 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:32:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16klIk-000AsX-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 12:22:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:41:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75A states "whether explicit" and "conditions of the current deal" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >Alerting 1S is contrary to Law and ABF regulation. L75 gives the >opponents merely the right to know your explicit or implicit >agreements, not what your pard actually holds. (However, an alert >of 1S would be appropriate if pard had previously carelessly >confused a short club with a strong club.) Not if he had done it once. One swallow does not make a summer, and it will help nobody if you assume every time partner makes a simple mistake that you now have an agreement to be told to everyone for the rest of time. -- 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 Mar 12 23:34:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CCYZ106731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:34:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2CCYQH06718 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 23:34:26 +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 NAA22832; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:21:34 +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 NAA13815; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:24:17 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020312132147.00a556f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:28:44 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving 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 10:51 12/03/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >Law 16A gives no such guidance to a player in receipt of UI. Law 16A >defines the process for dealing with a possible infraction of 73C. >Which of course says "When a player has available to him unauthorised >information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, >gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he >must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side." > >If a TD wants to "translate" this into "Try to bid as you normally would, >if you are not sure then choose a call that doesn't take advantage of the >UI". I could see no objection on legalistic grounds. AG : that's how many of us would like to see it work. Alas, players, in all honesty, are prone to think that the suggested bid is the one they would have made in any case, even when it's false. This is, after all, the meaning of the word 'suggestion' : an idea strongly implanted in your mind by external factors. Many players tell the AC that "it's the obvious bid, which I would have made" and they're not lying ; they're only slightly deluded. When they hear the AC doesn't agree, because its job is to be biased the other way, they're thunderstruck. Thus I'd prefer to explain it more restrictively, if only to justify the AC's decisions : "you have to be able to convince anybody that it's the right bid before you choose the suggested bid". Best regards, Alain. >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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 13 00:21:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CDLYl12180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:21:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2CDLPH12159 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:21:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47653.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.37]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2CDBDD09913 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:11:13 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C8DFE98.5010507@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:11:52 +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] not self serving References: <001201c1c9bf$d67f7ba0$0510e150@pacific> 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: > Grattan Endicott From: "Tim West-meads" > >>If a TD wants to "translate" this into "Try to bid as you normally would, >>if you are not sure then choose a call that doesn't take advantage of the >>UI". I could see no objection on legalistic grounds. >> >>Tim West-Meads >> >> > +=+ The Td does not have that option. He > *and the player* are bound by the Law as > promulgated. 16A does not leave room for > doubt. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > What Tim is saying, and I follow him in that, is that L16 does not tell a player what to do, only L73 does that. And maybe L73 is not as clear as L16 is. And maybe we shall solve this for 2007. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 13 00:25:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CDOnY12533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:24:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2CDOdH12511 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:24:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47653.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.37]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2CDEQD13222 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:14:26 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C8DFF59.5070706@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:15:05 +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: ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311173819.00a57b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3C8DCC8C.1040205@village.uunet.be> <002801c1c9bf$1f7e6c40$ca2de150@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well Grattan, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "There are nine and sixty ways of > constructing tribal lays > And-every-single-one-of-them-is-right." > > [ 'In the Neolithic Age' ~ Rudyard Kipling] > + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: 12 March 2002 09:38 > Subject: Re: ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) > > > >>>To Herman and other readers in Belgium : >>>what's our rule about that ? I'm not joking, alas. >>> >>> >> >>You mean if you willingly open a Multi on a 5-card >>spades ? I'm not very certain. >> >>I don't believe the current regulation says nothing, >>but the next one (from 1/9/2002) does : (I've copied >>the french version, which perhaps more people >>understand than the dutch one) >> >>-L'ouverture de 2. ou 2?, dans laquelle la seule >>variante faible est un deux faible (six cartes ou >>eventuellement plus) dans une majeure inconnue >>("Multi"), avec ou sans variantes fortes. >> >>So Multi on a 5-card suit would be BS. >> >> > ++==++ I must say that it concerns me that NBOs > are changing the terms of the WBF Systems Policy > (also adopted by the EBL) - this is the second > instance cited this week - and continuing to refer to > their product as 'Brown Sticker'. Well, the confusion is already there. The WBF and EBL policies are NOT completely the same, yet they use the same terms. But your point is well taken and I shall write : >>So Multi on a 5-card suit would be BS in Belgium. > his leads to > confusion and I think BS should continue to be only > as defined by the WBF, NBO variants being given > some other designation. > There is no objection to NBOs (in Europe > anyway) regulating the subject as they wish; but > we should not end up with a term ('Brown Sticker') > for which there are a whole variety of definitions. > ~ 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/ > > -- 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 Mar 13 01:10:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CEA4820103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:10:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2CE9sH20077 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 01:09:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2CDxjK18004 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:59:45 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:59 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving 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: <001201c1c9bf$d67f7ba0$0510e150@pacific> Grattan wrote: > > If a TD wants to "translate" this into "Try to bid as you normally > > would, if you are not sure then choose a call that doesn't take > > advantage of the UI". I could see no objection on legalistic > > grounds. > > Tim West-Meads > > > +=+ The Td does not have that option. He > *and the player* are bound by the Law as > promulgated. 16A does not leave room for > doubt. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ 16A Leaves an awful lot of room for doubt. For a start the term "logical alternative action" is not even defined in the laws (indeed undefined to such an extent that the meaning varies hugely between the EBU and the ACBL). Nor does the law explain what is meant by "demonstrably suggested". Both of the above topics have consumed reams (or whatever the electronic equivalent is) of discussion, argument and analysis. Even then LAs (by regulation) often include references to "peers" (without defining what factors to take into account when deciding who they are). A good quality L16 analysis of any but the most obvious situations needs consultation and reflection. It is wholly unrealistic to expect players to do that at the table. Last time I raised this issue BLML, particularly DWS said approx "Players should follow 73c, L16a is there to guide TDs/ACs". An approach that seemed to me both sensible and legal. Here's one from last night. None Vul, you hold 7652,QT432,Qxxx,- The auction is: 1N X 2H* X 2S 3C ? 2H intended as natural but correctly alerted and explained by pard as an exit transfer. Opps have no agreement on the 2nd X. You have not discussed whether 2S after the double shows spades/denies H/is automatic or whatever. Partner, despite your best endeavours, hates opening 1N with 5 spades. (Oh yes and none of your peers are stupid enough to play some damnfool system like exit transfers). Your opps are expecting a bid within at most 60 seconds - please carry out your L16 analysis within that time:) Good luck, 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 Mar 13 03:41:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CGexW17575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:40:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2CGeoH17554 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 03:40:50 +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 QAA07541 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:30:36 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:29:43 GMT Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c8e2cf7.7c9d.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.172.104 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 >> AG : then the ruling has to be 40/60, or +3/-3 IMPs. The >deal is deemed not >> to have existed, and the NOS would better have let the TD >sit in his >> corner, as is so often the case. >> But then the pair will alter the meaning of its bid to >conform to their >> newly established style, announcing "crazy 2S, 0-10 HCP, >5+ cards", and >> what will the opponents have won ? [Karel - I think DS's reply to this thread recommending A+/A- or the score if better than A+ hits the button on the nose. If the OS open a conventional bid which does not conform to the shape and or range specified - the NOS are disadvantaged unfairly. A few points either way or an extra card accounted for in an opps hand can make all the difference in bidding. Two things I'd comment on (1) To allow an opponent to "mistake" a card as another demonination etc etc (as per Alain) in a conventional opener is just giving the Psychers the excuse they need. It's an old chestnut I know - but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Simple is best - illegal full stop regardless of circumstances, eyesight included, if the conventional bid does not conform to the alerted range, is I feel practical and will save hours of TD's and Committees time. As for allowing the opps to change their system to a "crazy 2S" bid - sure why not - if they keep going eventually their bidding will be meaningless and they will have lost the value of the original convention. (2) Assigning A+/A- for an illegal bid MAY be open to abuse. Say you hold a hand as per example. It is quite reasonable to assume at least game if not slam on for the opps vulnerable. You open 2S or a suicidal 3S deliberately psyching on the expectation that A+ for the opps may be the best YOU can do !! (eg) you know the pair in question are excellent players and will arrive at the optimal contract !! There does not seem to be a solution to this - but - in addition to the A+/A- suggestion, I feel IF the NOS can PROVE (system notes, experience, lvl of competency) that they would have arrived at the top spot without the illegal bid then they should be awarded that score. The onus, though, is squarely on the NOS to prove this and WRITTEN proof should be required. >the proper information (and I say it again: this rule >applies for Muiderberg only). > >JP [Karel - The guideline in Ireland is that any multi weak or weak/strong opening combination MUST have at least one suit known for its weak meaning. So 2S as the minors weak, str with hearts or strong balanced is fine. 2S as the minors weak, weak hearts or strong balanced is illegal. The multi 2D is, I think, the only exception to this rule. BUT ... to allow a 2D multi opener with a 5CM should be in my opinion illegal. Multi causes enough aggravation as it is without giving it extra leeway. Another convention (I think Polish) is basically a multi tartan. 2D is 5M/4+m,weak is also illegal (in Ireland) and I feel rightly so. ] Back to Jan on this one. You stressed Muiderberg only is dealt with in this way in Holland. - Norwegian 2C - 4+\4+ majors 4-10 hcps. The guys psyches the bid with 5/3 or 4/3 or has 2/3 or maybe even 11/12 points. How do you deal with this ??? If leniency is given where is the line drawn ?? 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 Wed Mar 13 05:11:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CI8Y129757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:08:34 +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 g2CI8PH29743 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:08:26 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2CHwFX15360 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:58:16 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:58 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving 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: <3C8DFE98.5010507@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > What Tim is saying, and I follow him in that, is that L16 does not > tell a player what to do, only L73 does that. Spot on Herman. > And maybe L73 is not as > clear as L16 is. And maybe we shall solve this for 2007. And maybe it is not a problem. L73 places certain obligations on a player which most players can understand after the first few times. If I had to write a preamble to L16 it would say. "Listen guys, we know 73c isn't always easy to follow - you have to battle with your subconscious and sometimes make a difficult decision quickly. With the best will in the world you won't get it right every time. Here's how we go about protecting your opponents when we think you may have got it wrong. If we do adjust we aren't criticising your ethics or saying you didn't try to do the right thing. Oh, and you can tell it's not criticism because if we think you deliberately took advantage of the UI when you should know better you will find a 5 board PP attached to your score!" 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 Mar 13 05:43:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CIhEt03960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:43:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2CIh3H03932 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:43:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2CIWsY20247 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:32:54 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 18:32 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling 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: <3c8e2cf7.7c9d.0@esatclear.ie> Karel wrote: > (1) To allow an opponent to "mistake" a card as another demonination > etc etc (as per Alain) in a conventional opener is just giving the > Psychers the excuse they need. And that's the whole problem. Psychers shouldn't need "an excuse" they should just be able to say "I chose to psyche and I'm proud of it, partner disclosed (according to SO regs) everything she knew (if anything) about my psyching habits and didn't do anything unusual to cater to it." And, if afterwards, the psycher says "sorry pard I had three small hearts in with my diamonds" everyone can recognise it as the traditional attempt at humour it so obviously is. Oh, and if anyone has a problem with some psychers not disclosing properly, or "pretending psyches" in order to play illegal systems, then write some f******* regulations on disclosure and make sure they are enforced instead of trying to drive psyching out of the game. I'm sure I heard on the radio that the "Right to psyche" will be enshrined in European Human Rights legislation - and so it should be (mind you the radio was a bit crackly at the time). Tim, not at all frustrated, 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 Mar 13 05:49:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CInFw04675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:49:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mail6.nc.rr.com (fe6.southeast.rr.com [24.93.67.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2CIn6H04657 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 05:49:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom ([66.26.18.82]) by Mail6.nc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68); Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:38:58 -0500 Message-ID: <000c01c1c9f4$c1dbdf60$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] "Alice's Picture" Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:36:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1C9CA.D8D37CC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0009_01C1C9CA.D8D37CC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Have you checked the Friday Bulletin of the NABC's in Houston for the = picture of Marv's Alice? She played with Larry Cohen in the Thursday = evening game. www.acbl.org Houston Bulletins... Friday Nancy T. Dressing ------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1C9CA.D8D37CC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Have you checked the Friday = Bulletin of the=20 NABC's in Houston for the picture of Marv's Alice?  She played with = Larry=20 Cohen in the Thursday evening game.  www.acbl.org Houston Bulletins...=20 Friday
 
Nancy T.=20 Dressing
------=_NextPart_000_0009_01C1C9CA.D8D37CC0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 13 07:02:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CK2JW18010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 07:02:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2CK29H17983 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 07:02:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47653.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.58.37]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2CJpwr28782 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:51:58 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C8E5C84.1020201@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 20:52:36 +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] Illegal bid + ruling References: <3c8e2cf7.7c9d.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 I fully agree with Karel in this thread. However. Karel wrote: > > (1) To allow an opponent to "mistake" a card as another demonination etc etc > (as per Alain) in a conventional opener is just giving the Psychers the excuse > they need. I happen to find that most of the times I can make out if they are using this as an excuse or if it is the real thing. I don't think most bridgers are good enough actors to pull this one. (excluding Omar of course) It's an old chestnut I know - but the line has to be drawn somewhere. > Simple is best - illegal full stop regardless of circumstances, eyesight included, > if the conventional bid does not conform to the alerted range, is I feel practical > and will save hours of TD's and Committees time. As for allowing the opps to > change their system to a "crazy 2S" bid - sure why not - if they keep going > eventually their bidding will be meaningless and they will have lost the value > of the original convention. > Simple is best, indeed. Which is why I am certain we don't want to allow other excuses than the sight problem. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 13 09:30:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CMTGr10172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:29:16 +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 g2CMT7H10147 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:29:08 +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 RAA06183 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:18:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA27760 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:18:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:18:58 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203122218.RAA27760@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] ACBL: Bulletin article on Reisinger decision X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This will probably be of interest only to ACBL members. Apparently the AC decision has caused quite an uproar, and Brent Manley, Bulletin editor, has written an article that starts on p. 49 of the March issue. (I spent some time searching for the online case writeup and couldn't find it. Perhaps someone else will have better luck.) I'd be interested in hearing (by private email if you prefer not to send to the group) other people's views about the article. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 13 10:06:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CN6SM15219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:06:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2CN6JH15203 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:06:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.191]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GSV005FPUDFMS@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:56:05 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:54:50 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003c01c1ca18$ebeeb4c0$bf4c003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk How many people would play bridge -if they were expected to carry out a law 16 analysis. ? Do you think-that 2 % of people playing bridge in all it's forms know or care about Law 16. Sleep well and have nice dreams. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum---- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 3:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving > In-Reply-To: <001201c1c9bf$d67f7ba0$0510e150@pacific> > Grattan wrote: > > > > If a TD wants to "translate" this into "Try to bid as you normally > > > would, if you are not sure then choose a call that doesn't take > > > advantage of the UI". I could see no objection on legalistic > > > grounds. > > > Tim West-Meads > > > > > +=+ The Td does not have that option. He > > *and the player* are bound by the Law as > > promulgated. 16A does not leave room for > > doubt. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > 16A Leaves an awful lot of room for doubt. For a start the term "logical > alternative action" is not even defined in the laws (indeed undefined to > such an extent that the meaning varies hugely between the EBU and the > ACBL). Nor does the law explain what is meant by "demonstrably > suggested". Both of the above topics have consumed reams (or whatever the > electronic equivalent is) of discussion, argument and analysis. Even then > LAs (by regulation) often include references to "peers" (without defining > what factors to take into account when deciding who they are). > > A good quality L16 analysis of any but the most obvious situations needs > consultation and reflection. It is wholly unrealistic to expect players > to do that at the table. Last time I raised this issue BLML, > particularly DWS said approx "Players should follow 73c, L16a is there to > guide TDs/ACs". An approach that seemed to me both sensible and legal. > > Here's one from last night. > > None Vul, you hold 7652,QT432,Qxxx,- > > The auction is: > > 1N X 2H* X > 2S 3C ? > > 2H intended as natural but correctly alerted and explained by pard as an > exit transfer. Opps have no agreement on the 2nd X. You have not > discussed whether 2S after the double shows spades/denies H/is automatic > or whatever. Partner, despite your best endeavours, hates opening 1N with > 5 spades. (Oh yes and none of your peers are stupid enough to play some > damnfool system like exit transfers). > > Your opps are expecting a bid within at most 60 seconds - please carry out > your L16 analysis within that time:) > > Good luck, > > 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 Wed Mar 13 10:07:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2CN7X215364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:07:33 +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 (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2CN7OH15345 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:07:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA05238; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:57:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200203122257.OAA05238@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL: Bulletin article on Reisinger decision In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:18:58 EST." <200203122218.RAA27760@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 14:57:15 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > This will probably be of interest only to ACBL members. > > Apparently the AC decision has caused quite an uproar, and Brent > Manley, Bulletin editor, has written an article that starts on p. 49 of > the March issue. (I spent some time searching for the online case > writeup and couldn't find it. Perhaps someone else will have better > luck.) > > I'd be interested in hearing (by private email if you prefer not to > send to the group) other people's views about the article. Actually, I just today sent a letter to the Bulletin describing my views. It's actually a response to Bill Pollack's argument (he was the lone committee member voting to let the table score stand). Here's a copy of the letter: ====================================================================== I believe the committee made the correct decision in the Reisinger appeal. Bill Pollack's analysis is flawed on at least two counts. The first flaw has to do with whether declarer could have been void in spades. The committee majority felt he couldn't, because he would not have stranded his spades in dummy. Pollack disagrees, saying that Weinstein knew this because he had the spots to ensure that the [D]8 wasn't an entry, but that Garner would not have had the same knowledge. However, this analysis is incorrect because it neglects the [D]10, which Garner played to the first round of the suit. At the point where declarer led the diamond from dummy, he did not know the [D]10 would fall singleton; if he were void in spades, would he have stranded the spade honors hoping he could get back there with the [D]8, if he were missing _both_ the [D]K and [D]10? Hardly. The second problem is Pollack's implication that the defenders should not have it both ways. From Weinstein's point of view, he knew declarer had six diamonds and he "knew" Garner also knew that, so it didn't matter which heart he returned. From Garner's point of view, he knew declarer might have only five diamonds and he "knew" Weinstein also knew that, so he had to trust that Weinstein would choose his heart card more carefully. This is not an attempt by the defenders to "have it both ways", but rather a direct consequence of the defenders being given different pictures of the hand, in violation of the Laws. ====================================================================== For context, here's the hand: A K J 7 6 5 K 8 4 3 Q J 9 Weinstein Garner 10 9 3 Q 4 2 J 7 5 4 A 9 8 6 3 2 K 9 2 10 K 8 6 10 5 3 8 Q 10 A Q J 7 6 5 A 7 4 2 South played 3NT. The auction was complex, but during the auction, South bid 3D and explained it to West as showing 6+; North explained it to East simply as natural, actually 5+ based on the prior auction. The latter was the actual agreement. The opening H4 lead was ducked; declarer took a losing diamond finesse, and Weinstein returned the HJ, which Garner ducked. Since not everyone gets the Bulletin, here are the relevant excerpts from Pollack's argument: ====================================================================== 2) Weinstein admitted in committee that his HJ play was not well thought out, because he was convinced that the hand--assuming the same information had been given on both sides of the screen--was now an open book. Whoops! Yes, Weinstein "knew" that South was exactly 1-2-6-4, because declarer would not strand the high spades in dummy if he was 0-3-6-4. But Howie knew this because he had the diamond spots to ensure that the D8 wasn't an entry. Partner would not have the same knowledge. Weinstein also knew hearts weren't blocking, since declarer had A-10 or Q-10. I believe the HJ return was a sloppy play by a player who very rarely makes sloppy plays. ====================================================================== ====================================================================== My committee-mates felt that Garner had no further obligations. Parnter played the HJ, which appeared to be from an original holding of J-x-x, and Garner simply trusted partner. But should the defenders have it both ways--allowing the HJ to be returned because "it couldn't matter", yet blindly trusting partner to not be throwing you a curveball? ====================================================================== -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 13 13:08:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2D27pa15436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:07:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2D27hH15421 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:07:43 +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 NAA02962 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:09:51 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:55:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 12:51:08 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 13/03/2002 12:56:00 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >Here's one from last night. > >None Vul, you hold 7652,QT432,Qxxx,- > >The auction is: > >1N X 2H* X >2S 3C ? > >2H intended as natural but correctly alerted and explained by pard as an >exit transfer. Opps have no agreement on the 2nd X. You have not >discussed whether 2S after the double shows spades/denies H/is automatic >or whatever. Partner, despite your best endeavours, hates opening 1N with >5 spades. (Oh yes and none of your peers are stupid enough to play some >damnfool system like exit transfers). > >Your opps are expecting a bid within at most 60 seconds - please carry out >your L16 analysis within that time:) > >Good luck, > >Tim I bid 3S in tempo, as required by the Grabiner-Endicott-Hills interpretation of Laws 16 and 73. What's the problem? Furthermore, a basic principle behind all SO's alert regulations is that you are not entitled to be reminded of your partnership agreement by pard's alert. An assertion that you would have remembered your system anyway is irrelevant. Just as irrelevant is the parallel fallacy asserting that you should "make your normal bid", when that "normal bid" is demonstrably UI-suggested, and there is an alternative LA available. While it is merely incorrect to imply that players do not need to obey Laws 16 and 73, because a TD is there to adjust the score if necessary. Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 13 22:08:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DB6hd12447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:06:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2DB6WH12415 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:06:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16l6Qc-000LEO-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:56:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 00:21:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <3c8e2cf7.7c9d.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c8e2cf7.7c9d.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 >>> AG : then the ruling has to be 40/60, or +3/-3 IMPs. The >>deal is deemed not >>> to have existed, and the NOS would better have let the TD >>sit in his >>> corner, as is so often the case. >>> But then the pair will alter the meaning of its bid to >>conform to their >>> newly established style, announcing "crazy 2S, 0-10 HCP, >>5+ cards", and >>> what will the opponents have won ? > >[Karel - I think DS's reply to this thread recommending A+/A- or the score if >better than A+ hits the button on the nose. If the OS open a conventional bid >which does not conform to the shape and or range specified - the NOS are >disadvantaged >unfairly. A few points either way or an extra card accounted for in an opps >hand can make all the difference in bidding. Two things I'd comment on > >(1) To allow an opponent to "mistake" a card as another demonination etc etc >(as per Alain) in a conventional opener is just giving the Psychers the excuse >they need. It's an old chestnut I know - but the line has to be drawn >somewhere. > Simple is best - illegal full stop regardless of circumstances, eyesight >included, >if the conventional bid does not conform to the alerted range, is I feel >practical >and will save hours of TD's and Committees time. These things do not take long, and the liars get weeded out. It seems unfortunate to penalise people for simple mistakes because TDs find it too time-consuming to do their job. > As for allowing the opps to >change their system to a "crazy 2S" bid - sure why not - if they keep going >eventually their bidding will be meaningless and they will have lost the value >of the original convention. > > >(2) Assigning A+/A- for an illegal bid MAY be open to abuse. Say you hold >a hand as per example. It is quite reasonable to assume at least game if not >slam on for the opps vulnerable. You open 2S or a suicidal 3S deliberately >psyching on the expectation that A+ for the opps may be the best YOU can do >!! (eg) you know the pair in question are excellent players and will arrive >at the optimal contract !! Any pair that regularly does this will of course get 0 MPs on the board [or -24 imps at teams] on *all* future occasions. But an abuse that might happen once in 30,000 times should not be allowed to mess things up for the other 29,999. >There does not seem to be a solution to this - but - in addition to the A+/A- >suggestion, I feel IF the NOS can PROVE (system notes, experience, lvl of >competency) >that they would have arrived at the top spot without the illegal bid then they >should be awarded that score. The onus, though, is squarely on the NOS to prove >this and WRITTEN proof should be required. Sorry, but that is quite ridiculous. Players would now spend hours proving they would have reached the best contract. Since it is impossible to prove this would just add a totally unworkable regulation. >[Karel - The guideline in Ireland is that any multi weak or weak/strong opening >combination MUST have at least one suit known for its weak meaning. So 2S as >the minors weak, str with hearts or strong balanced is fine. 2S as the minors >weak, weak hearts or strong balanced is illegal. > >The multi 2D is, I think, the only exception to this rule. BUT ... to allow >a 2D multi opener with a 5CM should be in my opinion illegal. Multi causes >enough aggravation as it is without giving it extra leeway. Another convention >(I think Polish) is basically a multi tartan. 2D is 5M/4+m,weak is also illegal >(in Ireland) and I feel rightly so. In much of the world Weak Twos on five card suits are common, and therefore a Multi is played routinely as a five card suit. it seems very strange to disallow this if you allow the Multi at all. -- 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 Mar 13 22:42:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DBg2o16269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:42:02 +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 g2DBfrH16241 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:41:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2DBVgs18608 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:31:42 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:31 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving 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: Richard wrote: > >Here's one from last night. > > > >None Vul, you hold 7652,QT432,Qxxx,- > > > >The auction is: > > > >1N X 2H* X > >2S 3C ? > > > >2H intended as natural but correctly alerted and explained by pard as > >an exit transfer. Opps have no agreement on the 2nd X. You have not > >discussed whether 2S after the double shows spades/denies H/is > >automatic or whatever. Partner, despite your best endeavours, hates > >opening 1N with 5 spades. (Oh yes and none of your peers are stupid > >enough to play some damnfool system like exit transfers). > > > >Your opps are expecting a bid within at most 60 seconds - please carry > >out your L16 analysis within that time:) > I bid 3S in tempo, as required by the Grabiner-Endicott-Hills > interpretation of Laws 16 and 73. What's the problem? The problem is that you can't possibly know that 3S is a non-suggested LA within that sort of tempo. Firstly, absent the alert, what does the bid mean. Perhaps 5 good spades and 2 small hearts. Opposite that holding 4S is certainly worth considering. Would 3D be a game try in spades here, or genuine suit, is a double of 3C penalties or shortage showing? Does the fact that in partner's style 1NT practically denies this holding make any difference. Well maybe it does. Perhaps 2S is maximum H fit with a spade feature (which is how I think an intelligent partner used to natural systems would play it). Now 4H, 3S, and a 3D reciprocal game try are in the frame, and so is 3H (nice shape, fine but I do have only 4 points). But partner is a complete system junkie and I really don't think it would occur to her to use 2S in this way. What else could that 2S bid be in "the system I think I'm playing"? Only other one I can dredge up is that pard psyched 1N on some sort of long spade hand (this is about as likely as the earlier options, ie not). Now if pard has psyched then any bid from pass to 5S has excellent chances of throwing a spanner deeper into the enemy works. Does this mean I'm allowed to "wake up". Perhaps, I'm pretty sure between 60 and 80% of those who sometimes play exit transfers would assume "either partner's forgotten or I have" if this occurred with screens. Pass must be a sensible option in that case. Even if I'm not allowed to wake up I am playing in a field where "competing to the 3 level on 4 points opposite a weak NT" would be a distinctly minority action so Pass is probably one of the LAs anyway. So, having worked that out in about 4 seconds we have a list of 7 not unreasonable LAs P,X,3D,3H,3S,4H,4S. Phew, now if within the next 2 seconds I can work out which is least suggested I can deliver my bid "in tempo". Ok we know that pard expects 5S from me so maybe 4S is obviously "least suggested". Fine, except that opps don't know we have had a misunderstanding and that I am UI constrained. If I jump to 4S they *will* compete to 5C and almost certainly go off. This makes 4S quite appealing:) How about 4H, or 3H, well those will certainly cause partner to realise I had forgotten exit transfers (again), and she has no UI. As contracts they may well play OK. 3D, maybe. I reckon that will get me to play in 3Sx and making whenever pard has 4S. Should be OK too. X, I know pard will bid again and opponents will be even more confused. 3S, not a bad bid, will probably score OK. P, this should allow opps to get to 3N by W on a S lead from North - probably the best score they can get. Indeed I've been trying to identify the "least suggested" alternative for quite some time now and *still* can't work it out. However I am pretty sure that 3S is the "safety bid", a compromise that combines the best chances of mitigating the effects of UI and pushing opps to the wrong action. I just don't see how it is possible for a player to follow 16a when actually at the table, I am sure I have missed things from the above analysis even *with* genuine time to think. Of course if I am following 73c I can give a little thought to Pass and 3S as the choices, pick either if it's not obvious, and call the TD for a ruling at the end of the hand if I think there is even the remotest possibility that opponents were damaged. This will never get me a better score than could be obtained at the table and I will have "carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to my side." 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 Mar 13 23:58:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DCvOo24306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:57:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DCvFH24290 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 23:57:15 +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 NAA13754; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:44:21 +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 NAA06365; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:47:02 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020313134457.00a62a40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:51:30 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving 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 11:31 13/03/2002 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >Richard wrote: > > > >Here's one from last night. > > > > > >None Vul, you hold 7652,QT432,Qxxx,- > > > > > >The auction is: > > > > > >1N X 2H* X > > >2S 3C ? > > > > > >2H intended as natural but correctly alerted and explained by pard as > > >an exit transfer. Opps have no agreement on the 2nd X. You have not > > >discussed whether 2S after the double shows spades/denies H/is > > >automatic or whatever. Partner, despite your best endeavours, hates > > >opening 1N with 5 spades. (Oh yes and none of your peers are stupid > > >enough to play some damnfool system like exit transfers). > > > > > >Your opps are expecting a bid within at most 60 seconds - please carry > > >out your L16 analysis within that time:) > > > I bid 3S in tempo, as required by the Grabiner-Endicott-Hills > > interpretation of Laws 16 and 73. What's the problem? > >The problem is that you can't possibly know that 3S is a non-suggested LA >within that sort of tempo. > >Firstly, absent the alert, what does the bid mean. Perhaps 5 good spades >and 2 small hearts. AG : if 2H were natural, the bid shows a maximum, a good heart raise, and either (according to your style) strength or weakness in spades, ie it is a trial bid with hearts agreed. Since I'm compelled to bid according to that meaning, my bid should be 3H, not 3S. Of course, partner will not read it as 45 majors. That's the price to pay; I don't think 3S is a LA facing what (in the non-transfer interpretation) should be about AKx-KJxx-Kxx-xxx (assuming weak NT, right ?). Perhaps the real backwards-bending bid would be 4H. And then I can hope opps play me for 65 and defend. 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 Mar 14 00:07:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DD7Zs25360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:07:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2DD7QH25344 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:07:26 +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 NAA15790; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:54:32 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA16911; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:57:14 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020313135305.00a63d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 14:01:43 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling In-Reply-To: <3C8E5C84.1020201@village.uunet.be> References: <3c8e2cf7.7c9d.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 20:52 12/03/2002 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I fully agree with Karel in this thread. >However. > >Karel wrote: > >>(1) To allow an opponent to "mistake" a card as another demonination etc etc >>(as per Alain) in a conventional opener is just giving the Psychers the >>excuse >>they need. > > >I happen to find that most of the times I can make out if they are using >this as an excuse or if it is the real thing. I don't think most bridgers >are good enough actors to pull this one. >(excluding Omar of course) > >It's an old chestnut I know - but the line has to be drawn somewhere. >> Simple is best - illegal full stop regardless of circumstances, >> eyesight included, >>if the conventional bid does not conform to the alerted range, is I feel >>practical >>and will save hours of TD's and Committees time. As for allowing the opps to >>change their system to a "crazy 2S" bid - sure why not - if they keep going >>eventually their bidding will be meaningless and they will have lost the >>value >>of the original convention. > > >Simple is best, indeed. >Which is why I am certain we don't want to allow other excuses than the >sight problem. AG : apart from the specific sight problem, a player might always have forgotten hiqs system. Try this : 1NT 2H 2H is intended as natural, but the pair has recently switched to Dont (44+ majors). The player has 35 majors, of course. If he tells him he didn't remember his system, you may surely give him a small PP according to your cherished L74B1, but to penalize him heavily for psyching a conventional bid is going a bit too far. Now, what's the difference between this and opening a Muiderberg 2H with a one-suiter because you think you're showing a 5+-card weak-2 bid ? By the way, I've seen a good Belgian pair have excatly this problem, and I know they were honest and not trying to disguise a psyche. Herman, you pretend you're able to distinguish, from the tone of the justification, a psyche from a genuine error from a genuine missorting from a flying cow. I am not. Perhaps this is why I don't like to penalize a pair for disallowed psyche. If they tell me it's one of the other three cases I will have a hard time *demonstrating* it isn't true. For the same reason, banning psyches is difficult, even if I'd like (as a player, not as a TD) to see it done. 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 Mar 14 00:23:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DDNaA26965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:23:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2DDNRH26951 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:23:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16l8ZB-000744-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:13:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313080348.00a89f00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 08:14:09 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL: Bulletin article on Reisinger decision In-Reply-To: <200203122218.RAA27760@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 05:18 PM 3/12/02, Steve wrote: >This will probably be of interest only to ACBL members. > >Apparently the AC decision has caused quite an uproar, and Brent >Manley, Bulletin editor, has written an article that starts on p. 49 of >the March issue. (I spent some time searching for the online case >writeup and couldn't find it. Perhaps someone else will have better >luck.) > >I'd be interested in hearing (by private email if you prefer not to >send to the group) other people's views about the article. It struck me that although the article was nominally about the case and the decision, it wasn't really. There is a strong contingent within the ACBL that would like to do away with appeals committees altogether. Since the Law doesn't permit this, they are campaigning to overhaul the existing system drastically, arguing, not without merit, that nothing they might try is likely to be any worse than what we have now. This group is now seeking to make this decision a "poster case" for their cause. I suspect that Mr. Manley's not-so-hidden agenda in writing the article was to promote that viewpoint. 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 Mar 14 00:37:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DDbfn28504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:37:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp015.mail.yahoo.com (smtp015.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.59]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2DDbXH28491 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 00:37:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from opaf (AUTH login) at unknown (HELO pournaras) (opaf@212.205.99.24) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 13:27:22 -0000 Message-ID: <001b01c1ca92$cf15c170$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3c8e2cf7.7c9d.0@esatclear.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:27:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [David Stevenson] > In much of the world Weak Twos on five card suits are common, and > therefore a Multi is played routinely as a five card suit. it seems > very strange to disallow this if you allow the Multi at all. It seems to me that players just have to 'broaden' their convention definitions a bit, in order not to be called psychics! Instead of explaining the 2 spades opening as "Weak Two" they will just have to say something like "3-10 pts, 6crd, but on rare occasion a 5crd suit". That should make some TDs happy at least ... Or maybe M.Lawrence should name his "Passed Hand Bidding" book "How to psyche" ??? Takis Pournaras _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 14 01:43:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DEgbk05330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:42:37 +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 g2DEgSH05308 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:42:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48879.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.239]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2DEWBD19611 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:32:11 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C8F6311.9090704@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 15:32:49 +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] Illegal bid + ruling References: <3c8e2cf7.7c9d.0@esatclear.ie> <001b01c1ca92$cf15c170$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Takis, you need to get your definitions straight ! Takis Pournaras wrote: > [David Stevenson] > >>In much of the world Weak Twos on five card suits are common, and >>therefore a Multi is played routinely as a five card suit. it seems >>very strange to disallow this if you allow the Multi at all. >> > > It seems to me that players just have to 'broaden' their convention > definitions a bit, in order not to be called psychics! > If someone opens 2Sp on a five-card, I will not permit him to call that a psyche. In stead, I shall consider it the correct bid within his system and weigh off the amount of information about it that was given to the opponents, the frequency with which this particular player does this, and the general knowledge that a weak two can be done on a five card. Similarly, when someone opens 2Di on the same hand, explaining it as Multi, I would do the same. But then I'd have to also consider something else. A convention which designates an unknown weak suit is BS, unless it falls within the exception of Multi. Now, in Belgium, if perhaps not everywhere else, we have defined Multi as showing a six-card major suit. Now if this is in a tournament where BS is not allowed, the player opening this hand and calling it Multi is guilty not just of misinformation, but also of playing a forbidden system. This is not psyching. Also the case that Alain alluded to (bad eyesight) is not a "psyche", it is a "misbid". Both are ruled by L40A, but they are different. If the opener calls his bid a psyche, I say, no that is not a psyche, that is an illegal system. If the opener claims a misbid, I may choose to believe him or not, and I think I am able to do so with a reasonable chance of success. > Instead of explaining the 2 spades opening as "Weak Two" they will just have > to say something like "3-10 pts, 6crd, but on rare occasion a 5crd suit". > That should make some TDs happy at least ... > And a lot of opponents too. > Or maybe M.Lawrence should name his "Passed Hand Bidding" book "How to > psyche" ??? > > Takis Pournaras > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- 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 Mar 14 03:22:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DGLUN15654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:21:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DGLLH15642 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:21:22 +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 QAA07574 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:11:06 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:10:10 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c8f79e2.3498.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 159.134.224.246 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ok - so we allow a mistake. Now as per original example we don't get to 6D's. The only difference is the NOS don't get any recourse and keep the 50% 3NT + 3 - rub of the green. The difference between the 2 scenarios is as per Alain (ie) the TD must decide whether a player psyched or made a mistake - generally quite acceptable. Just to qualify - I'm not talking club bridge or minor league bridge competitions - but Major competitions. Just imagine - the deciding board for the bermuda bowl qualification Zia says he made a mistake and Hamman & Soloway say he psyched (he's famous for it after all)... and you have to decide based on ??? !! Herman - "I think I am able to do so with a reasonable chance of success" - I would shudder at the thought. It is quite conceivable you could end up being sued for defamation of character (its already happened in Ireland !!). And why go through all that when at the top level I feel players would be happy with a blanket - no conventional psyches regardless of circumstances - in the name of stopping them and the grief involved. > Any pair that regularly does this will of course get 0 MPs on the >board [or -24 imps at teams] on *all* future occasions. But an abuse >that might happen once in 30,000 times should not be allowed to mess >things up for the other 29,999. I undersatnd the sentiment and I applaud your trust in human honesty and integrity but I would venture that in the dog eat dog high level bridge competitions, the deliberate psyche is far more prevalent than the whatever else excuse they come up with. And in part answer to Alain the acting skills have improved immeasureably. > Sorry, but that is quite ridiculous. Players would now spend hours >proving they would have reached the best contract. Since it is >impossible to prove this would just add a totally unworkable regulation. Once again top level only - in which pairs are required to have ample system documentation in any event - I don't see the problem. The onus is on the NOS to prove they could have reached the optimal contract and if not they get A+ anyway. I think the NOS should have some way of getting better than A+. Then again implement a blanket rule and we have no problems at all. Illegal boom best possible score for the NOS. > In much of the world Weak Twos on five card suits are common, and >therefore a Multi is played routinely as a five card suit. it seems >very strange to disallow this if you allow the Multi at all. If shove came to push, I'd find it hard to produce a copy of what is definitively legal/illegal in Ireland let alone anywhere else but from playing in the US and europe - the general rule seems to be that a multi weak bid must have an anchor suit and even then can only be played at various competition levels. The Multi 2D bid seems to have got an exception (open to correction here) at the time this general anchor suit rule came into vogue due to its then current popularity. Multi 2D as I know it, is a weak 2 in either M 6 card or 20+ish strong balanced. At this stage it is well established and pairs in general have defences etc and dont mind playing against it. Tinkering with or changing it is in effect creating a new convention which is no longer THE multi 2D and should not be allowed under THE multi 2D exception. Ahh sure whats wrong with 5M. Ok fine. Ahh how about 5M/4+m multi ?? errrr .. OK. Ahh sure we've come this far what about 4M/4+m ?? Its just a back door to allowing almost any similar major oriented multi weak convention in. So called multi routinely played with 5M is not MULTI. We allowed an exception - we didn't say anything about allowing an exception of an exception. 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 Thu Mar 14 03:56:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DGtWS19069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:55:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DGtNH19048 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:55:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2DGixt04457; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:44:59 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:44:59 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2DGix602776; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:44:59 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:44:59 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07420; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:44:58 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA22245; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:44:58 GMT Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:44:58 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200203131644.QAA22245@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, karel@esatclear.ie Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Just to qualify - I'm not talking club bridge or minor league bridge competitions > - but Major competitions. Just imagine - the deciding board for the bermuda > bowl qualification Zia says he made a mistake and Hamman & Soloway say he psyched > (he's famous for it after all)... and you have to decide based on ??? !! Herman > - "I think I am able to do so with a reasonable chance of success" - I would > shudder at the thought. It is quite conceivable you could end up being sued > for defamation of character (its already happened in Ireland !!). Perhaps, at the top level, psyches of conventional bids would be legal. > And why go through all that when at the top level I feel players would be happy > with a blanket - no conventional psyches regardless of circumstances - in the > name of stopping them and the grief involved. I disagree: I feel players would be happy with conventional psyches allowed. If there were to be prohibition, I'm sure players would be happiers if all psyches/misbids/deviations of conventional calls were not allowed (so that no determination of intent was required). 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 Mar 14 04:23:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DHNSK22038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:23:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DHNJH22023 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:23:20 +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 RAA25419; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:13:04 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, karel@esatclear.ie Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:12:08 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c8f8868.382a.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 159.134.227.224 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 ..] >I disagree: I feel players would be happy with conventional psyches allowed. Sorry Robin - but my mind boggles at what you are suggesting. Bridge is a game which I enjoy for its logic, mathematical nature & psychological nature amongst many other facets. Allowing conventional psychs would simply throw the whole premise bridge is based on, on its face - it would become mindless & random with a psych every 2nd round completely destroying the game. I play a reasonable game (at least I hope so ... no doubt my various partners would disagree :>>) and I would be aghast at allowing conventional psyches. 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 Thu Mar 14 04:53:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DHqwZ25199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:52:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DHqnH25173 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:52:50 +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 SAA24853; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:39:57 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA13483; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:42:37 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020313184503.00a65ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:47:05 +0100 To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling In-Reply-To: <3c8f79e2.3498.0@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 16:10 13/03/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >Multi 2D as I know it, is a weak 2 in either M 6 card or 20+ish strong >balanced. AG : a little restrictive perhaps. The French allow either 20+ balanced or 17+ (or is it 18?) 3-suited or Acol in a minor. In Belgium, weak M6 or any game force is popular and allowed as non-BSC. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 14 04:55:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DHtf825512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:55:41 +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 (rc.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DHtWH25493 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:55:32 +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 SAA28544; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:44:23 +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 SAA15620; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:45:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020313184751.00a630c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:49:48 +0100 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, karel@esatclear.ie From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling In-Reply-To: <200203131644.QAA22245@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:44 13/03/2002 +0000, Robin Barker wrote: >If there were to be prohibition, I'm sure players would be happiers if all >psyches/misbids/deviations of conventional calls were not allowed (so that >no determination of intent was required). AG : what would you do to a player that didn't see his 13th card and showed, say, 4 spades when holding 5 ? This is not a psyche, this is not a misbid, this is not a deviation as it was not intended. It is uncommon but happens. And it has nothing to do with the bid being natural or artificial. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 14 04:56:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DHu5825570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:56:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DHtqH25532 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:55:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2DHjfW19618; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:45:41 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:45:41 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2DHjfD07142; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:45:41 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:45:41 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 RAA07484; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:45:40 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA22434; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:45:40 GMT Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:45:40 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200203131745.RAA22434@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, karel@esatclear.ie Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > [snip ..] > >I disagree: I feel players would be happy with conventional psyches allowed. > > > Sorry Robin - but my mind boggles at what you are suggesting. Bridge is a game > which I enjoy for its logic, mathematical nature & psychological nature amongst > many other facets. Allowing conventional psychs would simply throw the whole > premise bridge is based on, on its face - it would become mindless & random > with a psych every 2nd round completely destroying the game. I play a reasonable > game (at least I hope so ... no doubt my various partners would disagree :>>) > and I would be aghast at allowing conventional psyches. > As I said: we disagree. Top class players (not just Zia) psyche cue bids: the world does not end. Forrester psyched aspects of TRS against the USA in the Bermuda Bowl final: e.g. following an either-or bid, he deliberately showed the wrong alternative in competition. The write-up in IPBM said the USA players looked ruefully at one another and played the next board; no one suggested this should be illegal. 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 Mar 14 05:00:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DI03725998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:00:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DHxrH25975 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:59:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2DHnVt22734; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:49:31 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:49:31 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2DHnVh07302; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:49:31 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:49:31 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07494; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:49:30 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA22441; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:49:30 GMT Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:49:30 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200203131749.RAA22441@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, agot@ulb.ac.be Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >If there were to be prohibition, I'm sure players would be happiers if all > >psyches/misbids/deviations of conventional calls were not allowed (so that > >no determination of intent was required). > > AG : what would you do to a player that didn't see his 13th card and > showed, say, 4 spades when holding 5 ? This is not a psyche, this is not a > misbid, this is not a deviation as it was not intended. It is uncommon but > happens. And it has nothing to do with the bid being natural or artificial. > All I said was *If there were to be prohibition* players would prefer if it were automatic; I don't believe they want a a prohibition. To me (and the EBU), a misbid is unintentional (by definition). The orange book has psyche = gross and deliberate deviation = minor and deliberate misbid = not deliberate 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 Mar 14 05:05:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DI5Et26590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 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 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 g2DI55H26573 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:05:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1584.bb.online.no [80.212.214.48]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA09990 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:54:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001101c1cab8$2b6ad760$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020313184503.00a65ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:54:48 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: ; Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling > At 16:10 13/03/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: > > >Multi 2D as I know it, is a weak 2 in either M 6 card or 20+ish strong > >balanced. > > AG : a little restrictive perhaps. The French allow either 20+ balanced or > 17+ (or is it 18?) 3-suited or Acol in a minor. In Belgium, weak M6 or any > game force is popular and allowed as non-BSC. > And in Norway it is commonly weak M6 or limited 20-21 balanced (NT) (I have not seen strong, balanced, 20+ unlimited as part of multi, 22-24 is commonly covered by 2C - ? - 2NT, and 25-28 by 2C - ? - 3NT) 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 Mar 14 05:37:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DIaVA29954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:36:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DIaMH29934 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:36:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-9-237.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.9.237] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by carbon.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16lDRz-0002OD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:26:11 +0000 Message-ID: <3C8F9A01.3070900@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:27:13 +0000 From: Gordon Rainsford Reply-To: info@gordonrainsford.co.uk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011130 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020313184751.00a630c0@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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 16:44 13/03/2002 +0000, Robin Barker wrote: > >> If there were to be prohibition, I'm sure players would be happiers if all >> psyches/misbids/deviations of conventional calls were not allowed (so that >> no determination of intent was required). > > > AG : what would you do to a player that didn't see his 13th card and > showed, say, 4 spades when holding 5 ? This is not a psyche, this is not > a misbid, this is not a deviation as it was not intended. It is uncommon > but happens. And it has nothing to do with the bid being natural or > artificial. > Why is it not a misbid? Gordon Rainsford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 14 05:40:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DIeft00441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:40:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2DIeSH00410 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:40:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16lDVu-00017N-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:30:18 +0000 Message-ID: <2H9MgcBke5j8EwHw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:17:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL: Bulletin article on Reisinger decision References: <200203122218.RAA27760@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020313080348.00a89f00@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313080348.00a89f00@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 >At 05:18 PM 3/12/02, Steve wrote: > >>This will probably be of interest only to ACBL members. >> >>Apparently the AC decision has caused quite an uproar, and Brent >>Manley, Bulletin editor, has written an article that starts on p. 49 of >>the March issue. (I spent some time searching for the online case >>writeup and couldn't find it. Perhaps someone else will have better >>luck.) >> >>I'd be interested in hearing (by private email if you prefer not to >>send to the group) other people's views about the article. > >It struck me that although the article was nominally about the case and >the decision, it wasn't really. There is a strong contingent within >the ACBL that would like to do away with appeals committees >altogether. Since the Law doesn't permit this, they are campaigning to >overhaul the existing system drastically, arguing, not without merit, >that nothing they might try is likely to be any worse than what we have >now. This group is now seeking to make this decision a "poster case" >for their cause. I suspect that Mr. Manley's not-so-hidden agenda in >writing the article was to promote that viewpoint. It is a pity, then, that there poster case is such a bad example. It was a close decision, decided with care and compassion, possibly wrongly. So what? -- 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 Mar 14 05:40:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DIefZ00442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:40:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2DIeSH00409 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 05:40:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16lDVu-00017M-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:30:16 +0000 Message-ID: <33nMMSBPc5j8EwEC@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:14:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <3c8f79e2.3498.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c8f79e2.3498.0@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 >Ok - so we allow a mistake. Now as per original example we don't get to 6D's. > The only difference is the NOS don't get any recourse and keep the 50% 3NT >+ 3 - rub of the green. The difference between the 2 scenarios is as per Alain >(ie) the TD must decide whether a player psyched or made a mistake - generally >quite acceptable. > >Just to qualify - I'm not talking club bridge or minor league bridge >competitions >- but Major competitions. Just imagine - the deciding board for the bermuda >bowl qualification Zia says he made a mistake and Hamman & Soloway say he >psyched >(he's famous for it after all)... and you have to decide based on ??? !! >Herman >- "I think I am able to do so with a reasonable chance of success" - I would >shudder at the thought. It is quite conceivable you could end up being sued >for defamation of character (its already happened in Ireland !!). > >And why go through all that when at the top level I feel players would be happy >with a blanket - no conventional psyches regardless of circumstances - in the >name of stopping them and the grief involved. First of all, you are not helping if you are going to call something a psyche when it isn't. If a player gets a bid wrong accidentally he has misbid. Second, I think a rule banning misbids is not going to be acceptable to people. >> Any pair that regularly does this will of course get 0 MPs on the >>board [or -24 imps at teams] on *all* future occasions. But an abuse >>that might happen once in 30,000 times should not be allowed to mess >>things up for the other 29,999. > >I undersatnd the sentiment and I applaud your trust in human honesty and >integrity >but I would venture that in the dog eat dog high level bridge competitions, >the deliberate psyche is far more prevalent than the whatever else excuse they >come up with. And in part answer to Alain the acting skills have improved >immeasureably. Your complete lack of faith in the ability of TDs to do their job is not endearing. Sure, there may be problems, but so there are with lots of judgement decisions TDs have to make. >> Sorry, but that is quite ridiculous. Players would now spend hours >>proving they would have reached the best contract. Since it is >>impossible to prove this would just add a totally unworkable regulation. > >Once again top level only - in which pairs are required to have ample system >documentation in any event - I don't see the problem. The onus is on the NOS >to prove they could have reached the optimal contract and if not they get A+ >anyway. I think the NOS should have some way of getting better than A+. Then >again implement a blanket rule and we have no problems at all. Illegal boom >best possible score for the NOS. Sorry: this is quite ridiculous. Of course I can prove in writing that Grattan and I could get to *any* contract when I see all 52 cards - and we have not been a regular partnership for twelve years or so. Bridge is not a science. Any pair *can* get to any contract: the point is they often don't. Furthermore, your methods are not just ridiculous: they are biased. If a player does not have some irrelevant bit of system written you are not going to allow him this redress: why not? You need a level playing field. >> In much of the world Weak Twos on five card suits are common, and >>therefore a Multi is played routinely as a five card suit. it seems >>very strange to disallow this if you allow the Multi at all. > >If shove came to push, I'd find it hard to produce a copy of what is >definitively >legal/illegal in Ireland let alone anywhere else but from playing in the US >and europe - the general rule seems to be that a multi weak bid must have an >anchor suit and even then can only be played at various competition levels. What do you mean, anywhere else? I do not know the Irish regs, but I can produce definitive regs for what you are allowed to play in England, Wales, Sweden, South Africa, Australia, the EBL, the WBF and the ACBL. > The Multi 2D bid seems to have got an exception (open to correction here) at >the time this general anchor suit rule came into vogue due to its then current >popularity. > >Multi 2D as I know it, is a weak 2 in either M 6 card or 20+ish strong balanced. >At this stage it is well established and pairs in general have defences etc >and dont mind playing against it. Tinkering with or changing it is in effect >creating a new convention which is no longer THE multi 2D and should not be >allowed under THE multi 2D exception. Sorry, you are not allowed to define things to your own satisfaction and disallow what everyone else is doing. >Ahh sure whats wrong with 5M. Ok fine. Ahh how about 5M/4+m multi ?? errrr >.. OK. Ahh sure we've come this far what about 4M/4+m ?? Its just a back door >to allowing almost any similar major oriented multi weak convention in. So >called multi routinely played with 5M is not MULTI. We allowed an exception >- we didn't say anything about allowing an exception of an exception. Please try and keep this argument sensible. If you are saying [as you appear to be] that because the Multi is played one specific way in Ireland then we should ban other methods which are normal in other countries that is hardly fair. Why should we follow the Irish methods? If you are suggesting that your definition of the Multi is normal elsewhere then sorry: it isn't. As to why you want to disallow things which are allowed elsewhere the only reason you seem to give is lack of adequate regulation in Ireland. I have no idea whether you are right [Fearghal, where are you?] but that is no reason to force unwanted regs on other jurisdictions which have adequate regs. -- 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 Mar 14 09:34:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DMYE324685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:34:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2DMY4H24668 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:34:05 +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 g2CMeOo21234 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 22:40:24 GMT Message-ID: Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:08:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <200203131745.RAA22434@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200203131745.RAA22434@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200203131745.RAA22434@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes >> [snip ..] >> >I disagree: I feel players would be happy with conventional psyches allowed. >> >> >> Sorry Robin - but my mind boggles at what you are suggesting. Bridge is a >game >> which I enjoy for its logic, mathematical nature & psychological nature >amongst >> many other facets. Allowing conventional psychs would simply throw the whole >> premise bridge is based on, on its face - it would become mindless & random >> with a psych every 2nd round completely destroying the game. I play a >reasonable >> game (at least I hope so ... no doubt my various partners would disagree :>>) >> and I would be aghast at allowing conventional psyches. >> > >As I said: we disagree. > >Top class players (not just Zia) psyche cue bids: the world does not end. > >Forrester psyched aspects of TRS against the USA in the Bermuda Bowl final: >e.g. following an either-or bid, he deliberately showed the wrong alternative >in competition. The write-up in IPBM said the USA players looked ruefully at >one another and played the next board; no one suggested this should be illegal. > I use a CRaSh defence against strong club. I have shown the other two suits from those I actually hold, from time to time. The carnage is wonderful. Psyching is an essential part of the game. I think the game would be substantially less of a game if they were outlawed in any way. There's a London player and myself who probably play about 4 boards a week against each other, who have been steadily working each other over for the last 6 months. His comment is "Mostly they have no idea what's going on, but there's a much deeper 'game' going on when you and I are at the table". I couldn't agree more, and it is a tremendous challenge. Last week after P P 1H P 1S from me, etc, he called the TD because I had 4 spades :) cheers john >Robin > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 14 09:48:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DMmQ826178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:48:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2DMmIH26164 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 09:48:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16lHNn-000519-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:38:07 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313173248.00b4dbb0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 17:39:20 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling In-Reply-To: <3c8f79e2.3498.0@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 11:10 AM 3/13/02, karel wrote: >And why go through all that when at the top level I feel players would >be happy >with a blanket - no conventional psyches regardless of >circumstances - in the >name of stopping them and the grief involved. At the top level, I think players would be even happier with a blanket "no restrictions of any kind on psychs regardless of circumstances". At the lower levels, I think most players would be happier with a blanket "no psychs under any circumstances". IMO, a "no conventional psychs" policy is the refuge of SOs who would prefer "no psychs under any circumstances", but realize that they can bend L40A only so far before they break it entirely and obviously, with undesirable repercussions internationally. 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 Mar 14 10:16:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2DNFmf29205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:15:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2DNFeH29185 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:15:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16lHoH-0004vN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:05:30 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313180317.00b44c60@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:06:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Originally sent just to Karel by mistake; sorry for the double-post, Karel. >Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:03:06 -0500 >To: karel@esatclear.ie >From: Eric Landau >Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling > >At 12:12 PM 3/13/02, karel wrote: > >>Sorry Robin - but my mind boggles at what you are suggesting. Bridge >>is a game >>which I enjoy for its logic, mathematical nature & psychological >>nature amongst >>many other facets. Allowing conventional psychs would simply throw >>the whole >>premise bridge is based on, on its face - it would become mindless & >>random >>with a psych every 2nd round completely destroying the game. I play >>a reasonable >>game (at least I hope so ... no doubt my various partners would >>disagree :>>) >>and I would be aghast at allowing conventional psyches. > >Where I play, conventional psychs are not allowed, but natural psychs >are, and I encounter fewer than one psych per 1,000 deals. I very >much doubt that allowing conventional psychs would as much as double >the rate of encountering psychs of any kind. Why on Earth should >allowing psychs of conventional calls suddenly make our players, most >of whom virtually never psych natural calls now, start psyching on >every other round? 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 Mar 14 11:06:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2E067D05200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:06:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2E05xH05185 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:06:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA29881; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 11:08:08 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:53:59 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au, karel@esatclear.ie.gov.au Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:49:10 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/03/2002 10:54:14 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel wrote: [snip] >Bridge is a game which I enjoy for its logic, mathematical >nature & psychological nature amongst many other facets. >Allowing conventional psychs would simply throw the whole >premise bridge is based on, on its face - it would become >mindless & random with a psych every 2nd round completely >destroying the game. [snip] In an alternate universe, Lerak wrote: Bridge is a game which I enjoy for its logic, mathematical nature & psychological nature amongst many other facets. Allowing pre-emptive bids would simply throw the whole premise bridge is based on, on its face - it would become mindless & random with a pre-empt every 2nd round completely destroying the game. Best wishes Drahcir -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 14 12:18:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2E1Gl912833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:16:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2E1GbH12816 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 12:16:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-014.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.206] helo=oemcomputer) by mail2.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16lJh8-0005VW-00; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:06:15 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:05:06 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1CAF4.477893C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'David Stevenson'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:05:05 -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 wrote in reply to Karel (snipped) First of all, you are not helping if you are going to call something a psyche when it isn't. If a player gets a bid wrong accidentally he has misbid. Second, I think a rule banning misbids is not going to be acceptable to people. Your complete lack of faith in the ability of TDs to do their job is not endearing. Sure, there may be problems, but so there are with lots of judgement decisions TDs have to make. Bridge is not a science. Any pair *can* get to any contract: the point is they often don't. Furthermore, your methods are not just ridiculous: they are biased. If a player does not have some irrelevant bit of system written you are not going to allow him this redress: why not? What do you mean, anywhere else? I do not know the Irish regs, but I can produce definitive regs for what you are allowed to play in England, Wales, Sweden, South Africa, Australia, the EBL, the WBF and the ACBL. Sorry, you are not allowed to define things to your own satisfaction and disallow what everyone else is doing. Please try and keep this argument sensible. If you are saying [as you appear to be] that because the Multi is played one specific way in Ireland then we should ban other methods which are normal in other countries that is hardly fair. Why should we follow the Irish methods? If you are suggesting that your definition of the Multi is normal elsewhere then sorry: it isn't. As to why you want to disallow things which are allowed elsewhere the only reason you seem to give is lack of adequate regulation in Ireland. I have no idea whether you are right [Fearghal, where are you?] but that is no reason to force unwanted regs on other jurisdictions which have adequate regs. ************************************************************************** Karel is one of the top young Irish players. He is not a TD. He has recently joined this list and has also just recently bought a copy of TFLB. He is very interested in discussing the Laws and obviously comes across TD rulings which he finds puzzling. (I'm on the other side of the country so I plead not guilty). His logic is typical of most eager keen players (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?) But with replies like that of DWS above he will learn fast (not to shoot from the hip). The Irish regs may be hard to track down but they are basically the same as the English regs. And Brown Sticker is as defined by the WBF and adopted by the EBL. 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 Mar 14 13:50:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2E2nIK22628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:49:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2E2nBH22616 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:49:11 +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 NAA27264 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:51:20 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:37:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:32:36 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/03/2002 01:37:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: [big snip] >I just don't see how it is possible for a player to follow 16a when >actually at the table, [snip] I just don't see how it is possible for a player to avoid revoking when actually at the table. 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 Mar 14 19:43:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2E8gbr02106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:42:37 +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.tiscali.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 g2E8gSH02089 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 19:42:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.41.203] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16lQeb-000BtM-00; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:32:07 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c1cb33$39e71260$cb29e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020311173819.00a57b10@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3C8DCC8C.1040205@village.uunet.be> <002801c1c9bf$1f7e6c40$ca2de150@pacific> <3C8DFF59.5070706@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: ophtalmology (was : [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling) Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 01:37:35 -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 > > > Well, the confusion is already there. The WBF and > EBL policies are NOT completely the same, yet they > use the same terms. > But your point is well taken and I shall write : > +=+ I must have a moment with you on this subject in Oostende, Herman. As a member of the EBL Systems Committee I would expect to know of any difference. In my understanding the only area of difference - the ban on psyching conventions in certain tournaments - has nothing to do with BS definitions. ~ 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 Mar 14 21:06:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2EA5aT13792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:05:36 +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 (Comix-files.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2EA5RH13769 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:05:28 +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 KAA20104; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:54:17 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id KAA13722; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:55:14 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020314105512.00a626f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:59:44 +0100 To: info@gordonrainsford.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling In-Reply-To: <3C8F9A01.3070900@gordonrainsford.co.uk> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020313184751.00a630c0@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 18:27 13/03/2002 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: >>>If there were to be prohibition, I'm sure players would be happiers if all >>>psyches/misbids/deviations of conventional calls were not allowed (so that >>>no determination of intent was required). >> >>AG : what would you do to a player that didn't see his 13th card and >>showed, say, 4 spades when holding 5 ? This is not a psyche, this is not >>a misbid, this is not a deviation as it was not intended. It is uncommon >>but happens. And it has nothing to do with the bid being natural or artificial. > > >Why is it not a misbid? > AG : I define a misbid as a bid which you made because you thought it was your systemic bid, only it was not. One might wish to regulate against misbids in complex systems (eg you may not err when responding to your partner's relay). But how could you regulate (apart from L74B1, perhaps) against a player who didn't see a card ? After all, another well-known law says that when a player bids with only 12 of one's 13 cards, no alteration of the score can happen. >Gordon Rainsford > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 14 21:52:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2EAqQJ19549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:52:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium.btinternet.com (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2EAqHH19528 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 21:52:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from host217-35-22-144.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.22.144] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by rhenium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 16lSgP-0005A4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:42:05 +0000 Message-ID: <3C907EB8.7060402@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:43:04 +0000 From: Gordon Rainsford Reply-To: info@gordonrainsford.co.uk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011130 Netscape6/6.2.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020313184751.00a630c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020314105512.00a626f0@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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 18:27 13/03/2002 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > >>>> If there were to be prohibition, I'm sure players would be happiers >>>> if all >>>> psyches/misbids/deviations of conventional calls were not allowed >>>> (so that >>>> no determination of intent was required). >>> >>> >>> AG : what would you do to a player that didn't see his 13th card and >>> showed, say, 4 spades when holding 5 ? This is not a psyche, this is >>> not a misbid, this is not a deviation as it was not intended. It is >>> uncommon but happens. And it has nothing to do with the bid being >>> natural or artificial. >> >> >> >> Why is it not a misbid? >> > > AG : I define a misbid as a bid which you made because you thought it > was your systemic bid, only it was not. It still seems to be a misbid, even within your definition. Gordon Rainsford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 15 00:18:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2EDGdV04856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:16:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2EDGVH04841 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 00:16:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-22.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.22] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16lUvy-0002ZL-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:06:19 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020314075926.00b46b80@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 08:07:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL: Bulletin article on Reisinger decision In-Reply-To: <2H9MgcBke5j8EwHw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313080348.00a89f00@pop.starpower.net> <200203122218.RAA27760@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020313080348.00a89f00@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 01:17 PM 3/13/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >It struck me that although the article was nominally about the case and > >the decision, it wasn't really. There is a strong contingent within > >the ACBL that would like to do away with appeals committees > >altogether. Since the Law doesn't permit this, they are campaigning to > >overhaul the existing system drastically, arguing, not without merit, > >that nothing they might try is likely to be any worse than what we have > >now. This group is now seeking to make this decision a "poster case" > >for their cause. I suspect that Mr. Manley's not-so-hidden agenda in > >writing the article was to promote that viewpoint. > > It is a pity, then, that there poster case is such a bad example. It >was a close decision, decided with care and compassion, possibly >wrongly. So what? It is a very bad example; indeed, after reading much of the flap, I think I probably would have voted with the majority had I been on the committee. It is, however, a cause celebre in the right place at the right time for some. But there are some in the ACBL right now -- on the other side of the issue from Mr. Manley -- who are quite perturbed at him for what they see as a political propaganda piece disguised as reportage on the controversy. Had it been written as an editorial, I doubt it would have been particularly controversial. 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 Mar 15 01:39:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2EEcrX13095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:38:53 +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 ([194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2EEcgH13079 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 01:38:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16lWDQ-000KN3-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:28:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 03:20:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <3c8f8868.382a.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c8f8868.382a.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 >[snip ..] >>I disagree: I feel players would be happy with conventional psyches allowed. > > >Sorry Robin - but my mind boggles at what you are suggesting. Bridge is a game >which I enjoy for its logic, mathematical nature & psychological nature amongst >many other facets. Allowing conventional psychs would simply throw the whole >premise bridge is based on, on its face - it would become mindless & random >with a psych every 2nd round completely destroying the game. I really do not know where these ideas come from. In England you may psyche most conventional openings. Does that mean there is a psyche every second round? No. The last time someone psyched a conventional opening against me [including CHO] was .... I cannot remember. What difference does it make? You can psyche a natural bid, you can psyche a conventional bid. Why should one be so much more frequent than the other? Anyway, it is not. > I play a >reasonable >game (at least I hope so ... no doubt my various partners would disagree :>>) >and I would be aghast at allowing conventional psyches. But you have expressed no logical reason for this view. -- 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 Mar 15 02:28:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2EFRu018306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:27:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (sss.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2EFRmH18291 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:27:48 +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 QAA19842; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:16:37 +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 QAA04004; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:17:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020314161902.00a66a00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:22:03 +0100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling In-Reply-To: References: <3c8f8868.382a.0@esatclear.ie> <3c8f8868.382a.0@esatclear.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2EFRoH18295 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:20 14/03/2002 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > I really do not know where these ideas come from. In England you may >psyche most conventional openings. Does that mean there is a psyche >every second round? No. The last time someone psyched a conventional >opening against me [including CHO] AG : I'm accustomed to the feeling of having three opponents, but can't your acronym be taken as risqué ? In French the 'center hand (or leg)' is, you guess what. May I suggest to call this person 'the oppositenent' ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 15 03:21:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2EGKeh24032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:20:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2EGKUH24014 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 03:20:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from esatclear.ie (IDENT:httpd@gratin.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.35]) by wonka.esatclear.ie (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA12030 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:10:13 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:09:14 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c90cb2a.6a8b.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 159.134.224.177 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 ...] >Karel is one of the top young Irish players. He is not a TD. >He has recently joined this list and has also just recently bought a copy of TFLB. >He is very interested in discussing the Laws and obviously comes across TD rulings which he finds puzzling. >(I'm on the other side of the country so I plead not guilty). > >His logic is typical of most eager keen players (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?) >But with replies like that of DWS above he will learn fast (not to shoot from the hip). > >The Irish regs may be hard to track down but they are basically the same as the English regs. >And Brown Sticker is as defined by the WBF and adopted by the EBL. [Karel - yes I plead guilty - a little knowledge absolutely - alot of my contributions to this forum ARE based on vague notions, stuff I've picked up from other players, stuff read, etc or from experiences which happened to me which I then assumed were gospel. For instance a few years back I used my bridge judgement and opened a minor 2 suiter in 3rd position with an 11 count (it was alerted as <11 which is what we agreed) - the opps a top international irish pair got it all wrong ended in a daft contract and then called the cops on learning I had 1 point more than I should have - The TD at the time supported their view. Since then I assumed conventional weak openers which deviated in shape and/or points from what was agreed is illegal end of story. This is one of the reasons I was pushing Jan and others about the exact legality of the Muiderberg convention in Holland. It is quite an eye opener seeing all the PRO votes for allowing conventional psyches at top levels in this forum and that psyching a conventional bid may have many shades of grey depending on the country and organising body. It looks like a re-adjustment in my Irish views will be required. I generally do abit of a physical and psychological workout before opening my e-mail I'm sporting several well earned bruises and expect alot more - not sure there was much left of my hip on that last thread :>>> - anyway keep up the good work David et al - no pain no gain !!! The one thing I find invaluable about this forum is that most of the people involved in the laws are on it and its actually very re-assuring that I can post IMO a dubious ruling etc and get informed on whether I was wrong or right and why. On that subject - the next laws ammendment sesion by the powers to be should I feel look into the issue of a different set of laws for different playing levels. It seems to be comming an issue. And lastly - just for more punishment (left arm needs a few more matching bruises !!) - I'm aware of the difference between a psych and a misbid. There are different laws governing a psych and a misbid. It is my contention that a deliberate psych can be passed off as a misbid. In the thread to date the TD has to decide which law to apply based on his judgement of the truthfulness of the OS's claim. DWS has great faith in his TD's in this matter. This is not the point. Once a TD is asked to make a judgement about a person's character he passes outside of the realms of the bridge world. A TD is now being asked to pass judgement on a player based on the TD's interpretation, NOT of the rules of bridge, but the players body language, mannerisms, tone, etc. All these attributes are personal and a ruling made by a TD against a player is in effect stating that the TD is SURE the player is lying. This is an extremely serious accusation and can lead to very unpleasant circumstances. I can only speak from my limited knowledge of the Irish bridge scene. As stated previously there was a law case a few years back involving similar circumstances. Now maybe you've been lucky to date or possibly are experienced enough not to get embroiled in such a case - but surely just the possibility - should in its self influence the Laws of bridge to avoid such an occurence ?? Hence my proposal to apply a blanket ban. In reality all it needs is one or two public cases and I would venture a TD would become very wary of not accepting the misbid claim. 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 Fri Mar 15 09:02:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2EM21j28594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:02:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2EM1qH28581 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:01:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3733.bb.online.no [80.212.222.149]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA09626; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:51:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001701c1cba2$565d9a80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , References: <3c90cb2a.6a8b.0@esatclear.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:50:54 +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 ..... > [Karel - yes I plead guilty - a little knowledge absolutely - alot of my contributions > to this forum ARE based on vague notions, stuff I've picked up from other players, > stuff read, etc or from experiences which happened to me which I then assumed > were gospel. > > For instance a few years back I used my bridge judgement and opened a minor > 2 suiter in 3rd position with an 11 count (it was alerted as <11 which is what > we agreed) - the opps a top international irish pair got it all wrong ended > in a daft contract and then called the cops on learning I had 1 point more than > I should have - The TD at the time supported their view. Since then I assumed > conventional weak openers which deviated in shape and/or points from what was > agreed is illegal end of story. This is one of the reasons I was pushing Jan > and others about the exact legality of the Muiderberg convention in Holland. I sometimes get very surprised by what I read here, so also with this case: First of all, a 1HCP deviation from agreement is definitely not a psyche, and if your bridge judgement told you that the HCP's in your hand were so lousy that it wasn't really worth more than 10 (ordinary) HCP then I would (if I had been summoned as TD) tried my view of your hand, and if I agreed with your judgement just leave it there and accept your bid. The fact that "opponents got it all wrong" needs some good reasoning, but at the outset I would be very sceptic to a request for redress on such reason. (My ruling would easily be different if you had a reputation for deviating like that from your agreements to the degree that partner most likely is aware of it). ..... > And lastly - just for more punishment (left arm needs a few more matching bruises > !!) - I'm aware of the difference between a psych and a misbid. There are different > laws governing a psych and a misbid. It is my contention that a deliberate > psych can be passed off as a misbid. In the thread to date the TD has to decide > which law to apply based on his judgement of the truthfulness of the OS's claim. > DWS has great faith in his TD's in this matter. This is not the point. I am not aware of any difference in the laws that applies to psyches versus misbids. These are both covered by Law40A (which specifically "includes psychic calls" but do not exclude other deviations from agreements, i.e. misbids). However, as we all know, sponsoring organisations may (subject to authorization by the laws) issue regulations that limit the use of conventions (Law40D), and such regulations may of course distinguish between different classes of calls as long as they stay within the scope outlined by Law40D. > > Once a TD is asked to make a judgement about a person's character he passes > outside of the realms of the bridge world. A TD is now being asked to pass > judgement on a player based on the TD's interpretation, NOT of the rules of > bridge, but the players body language, mannerisms, tone, etc. All these attributes > are personal and a ruling made by a TD against a player is in effect stating > that the TD is SURE the player is lying. This is an extremely serious accusation > and can lead to very unpleasant circumstances. Agreed completely! 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 Mar 15 09:39:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2EMd3b02279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:39:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2EMcsH02267 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:38:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2EMSdB15244 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:28:39 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 22:28 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving 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: Richard wrote: > >I just don't see how it is possible for a player to follow 16a when > >actually at the table, > > [snip] > > I just don't see how it is possible for a player to avoid revoking > when actually at the table. Strangely most players find it fairly easy to work out which suit has been led. The simple expedient of looking at the table is often helpful. If that is beyond you try asking the other players. You suggested an in tempo bid of 3S to the original problem. Alain looked at the problem rather more deeply and identified 3 (possibly 4) hearts as the likely solution. If you had actually bid 3S in tempo I would be very hard to convince that you had actually considered all the possible options and their ramifications. Unlike a complex "non-ui" auction l6 does not allow "What the hell I'll just bid ??". L16 places a requirement that can often require several minutes to work through - and that is why it is wholly inappropriate to expect players to be subject to it at the table. Law 73c is sufficient for that purpose. 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 Mar 15 09:41:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2EMffs02614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:41:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2EMfWH02602 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:41:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id JAA16287 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:43:39 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:29:30 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 09:24:49 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/03/2002 09:29:44 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel wrote: [big snip] >There are different laws governing a psych and a misbid. It is my >contention that a deliberate psych can be passed off as a misbid. [big snip] Let us get our definitions correct. Firstly, a true psyche is where all three opponents are misled; a pseudo-psyche is more accurately known as a Concealed Partnership Understanding. Secondly, there are different _regulations_ in different SOs. In some SOs the regs are: * true psyches of conventions are barred, and * misbids of conventions are not barred. But the _Laws_ are and have been deliberately structured over the years (L40A and L75) so that misbids and true psyches are in all other situations treated the same. In Australia, where true psyches of conventions have always been permitted, misbids and true psyches attract identical rulings. Therefore, in Australia, passing off a true psyche as a misbid is unnecessary and futile. 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 Mar 15 13:23:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2F2Mqs29672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:22:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g2F2MgH29655 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:22:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16lhCk-000Gpe-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:12:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:41:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020313184751.00a630c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3C8F9A01.3070900@gordonrainsford.co.uk> <5.1.0.14.0.20020314105512.00a626f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020314105512.00a626f0@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 18:27 13/03/2002 +0000, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > >>>>If there were to be prohibition, I'm sure players would be happiers if all >>>>psyches/misbids/deviations of conventional calls were not allowed (so that >>>>no determination of intent was required). >>> >>>AG : what would you do to a player that didn't see his 13th card and >>>showed, say, 4 spades when holding 5 ? This is not a psyche, this is not >>>a misbid, this is not a deviation as it was not intended. It is uncommon >>>but happens. And it has nothing to do with the bid being natural or >artificial. >> >> >>Why is it not a misbid? >> > >AG : I define a misbid as a bid which you made because you thought it was >your systemic bid, only it was not. The problem with personal definitions like this which are not mainstream is that they make discussion difficult, without really helping. Generally a misbid is considered a bid that does not follow the agreed system unintentionally. The reason for making a misbid is not part of the generally accepted definition. -- 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 Mar 15 14:06:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2F36Hi04320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:06:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2F368H04303 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:06:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.86.113] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16lhsg-000Dwl-00; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:55:47 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c1cbcd$671be4a0$7156e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "Patricia Davidson" , "lynn hunt" Subject: [BLML] Ostend Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 02:57:55 -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; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:11:30 +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 RAA06642 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:13:38 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:59:26 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:54:26 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/03/2002 04:59:40 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [snip] >You suggested an in tempo bid of 3S to the original >problem. Alain looked at the problem rather more >deeply and identified 3 (possibly 4) hearts as the >likely solution. "The" is too strong a word. Law 16 merely states that LAs demonstrably suggested by UI are illegal. If there are multiple legal LAs remaining after exclusion of illegal LAs, then any such call may be chosen. Since both 3S and 4H are LAs _not_ demonstrably suggested by the UI, both 3S and 4H are legal under L16. >If you had actually bid 3S in tempo I would be very >hard to convince that you had actually considered all >the possible options and their ramifications. I spent ten years hard labour on Bidding Forum (the Oz equivalent of the MSC). I agree that, if L16 required considering *all* possible options and ramifications, then bridge sessions would double in length. But L16 merely requires a simple pruning of illegal options. >Unlike a complex "non-ui" auction L16 does not allow >"What the hell I'll just bid ??". Shock! Horror! I agree. (Although perhaps we are both wrong, since the CTD of New Zealand holds the opposite view.) >L16 places a requirement that can often require several >minutes to work through - and that is why it is wholly >inappropriate to expect players to be subject to it at >the table. Law 73c is sufficient for that purpose. > >Tim Double squeezes place a requirement that can often require several minutes to work through. Recommended solution for you to save time is: 1. Announcing that you are claiming on a double squeeze. 2. Unimpressed opponents ask you to play the hand out. 3. Unimpressed opponents opinion justified when you mistime the play in the double squeeze. 4. Lengthy AC hearing gives you your contract after all. 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 Sat Mar 16 01:18:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2FEGE422958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:16:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2FEFwH22933 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:16:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.154]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GT0002LYPTBHQ@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 16:05:38 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:59:15 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000601c1cc2a$505dc5a0$9a4f003e@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The best reason - No, one f the good reasons to a b o l i s h AC. After all it's no more than a game,and enough is enough. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum Tel aviv ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving > > [snip] > > >You suggested an in tempo bid of 3S to the original > >problem. Alain looked at the problem rather more > >deeply and identified 3 (possibly 4) hearts as the > >likely solution. > > "The" is too strong a word. Law 16 merely states > that LAs demonstrably suggested by UI are illegal. If > there are multiple legal LAs remaining after exclusion > of illegal LAs, then any such call may be chosen. > Since both 3S and 4H are LAs _not_ demonstrably > suggested by the UI, both 3S and 4H are legal under L16. > > >If you had actually bid 3S in tempo I would be very > >hard to convince that you had actually considered all > >the possible options and their ramifications. > > I spent ten years hard labour on Bidding Forum (the Oz > equivalent of the MSC). I agree that, if L16 required > considering *all* possible options and ramifications, > then bridge sessions would double in length. But L16 > merely requires a simple pruning of illegal options. > > >Unlike a complex "non-ui" auction L16 does not allow > >"What the hell I'll just bid ??". > > Shock! Horror! I agree. (Although perhaps we are both > wrong, since the CTD of New Zealand holds the opposite > view.) > > >L16 places a requirement that can often require several > >minutes to work through - and that is why it is wholly > >inappropriate to expect players to be subject to it at > >the table. Law 73c is sufficient for that purpose. > > > >Tim > > Double squeezes place a requirement that can often > require several minutes to work through. Recommended > solution for you to save time is: > > 1. Announcing that you are claiming on a double > squeeze. > 2. Unimpressed opponents ask you to play the hand > out. > 3. Unimpressed opponents opinion justified when you > mistime the play in the double squeeze. > 4. Lengthy AC hearing gives you your contract after > all. > > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 16 01:19:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2FEJJj23324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:19:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2FEJAH23297 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:19:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2FE8sA20455 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:08:54 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:08 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling 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: Richard Hills wrote: > > Let us get our definitions correct. Firstly, a true psyche is where > all three opponents are misled; a pseudo-psyche is more accurately > known as a Concealed Partnership Understanding. Let us get our definitions correct. It matters not one whit how many of the other players *are* misled. Any or all of them may not be misled because their experience of the game/actual holding makes it clear to them what is going on. The laws just say "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length." I think this is a little woolly/unhelpful. And would prefer something like "Any call deliberately made in the full knowledge that an alternative call is clearly a better description of the actual holding according to the partnership agreements." Perhaps they mean the same thing. If a playing weak NT, 4CM I choose to open 1D on eg KQTx,AJx,xxx,AJx then I consider it a psyche (whereas 1C or 1N I don't). However I can't convince myself that it can be called a gross misstatement of either honour strength or suit length when KQx,AJx,xxxx,AJx is an obviously systemic 1D opener. Perhaps instead we could try "A deliberate attempt to mislead opponents by misstating the honour strength/suit length of the hand." Playing a weak NT the other day 3rd in hand, nvul vs vul I opened 1N on Kxx,Tx,AK98xx,xx without even thinking that I might be psyching and yet this is apparently more of a distortion than the above. Even when we have our definition of a psyche firmed up there is still an awful lot of ground to cover before we can begin to consider a psyche as a CPU. A "PU" can only be "C" if a) an opposing pair cannot reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, and b) it has not been disclosed in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. I am not sure what regulations your SO has in such matters. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 16 01:49:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2FEn5E26879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:49:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2FEmtH26864 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:48:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16lsqs-0006S5-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:38:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:44:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ostend References: <001601c1cbcd$671be4a0$7156e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001601c1cbcd$671be4a0$7156e150@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 >+=+ Not here until Sunday 24th evening. > Ostend: European Mixed Pairs/Teams. May I suggest you go to the correct venue? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 16 01:49:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2FEnDd26895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:49:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2FEn1H26874 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 01:49:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16lsqs-0006S3-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 14:38:46 +0000 Message-ID: <0RbsFNCjofk8EwfP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:41:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling References: <3c90cb2a.6a8b.0@esatclear.ie> In-Reply-To: <3c90cb2a.6a8b.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 >And lastly - just for more punishment (left arm needs a few more matching >bruises >!!) - I'm aware of the difference between a psych and a misbid. There are >different >laws governing a psych and a misbid. It is my contention that a deliberate >psych can be passed off as a misbid. In the thread to date the TD has to decide >which law to apply based on his judgement of the truthfulness of the OS's claim. > DWS has great faith in his TD's in this matter. This is not the point. > >Once a TD is asked to make a judgement about a person's character he passes >outside of the realms of the bridge world. A TD is now being asked to pass >judgement on a player based on the TD's interpretation, NOT of the rules of >bridge, but the players body language, mannerisms, tone, etc. All these >attributes >are personal and a ruling made by a TD against a player is in effect stating >that the TD is SURE the player is lying. This is an extremely serious >accusation >and can lead to very unpleasant circumstances. Of course we do not say a player is lying. We assess the evidence and then make a judgement. >I can only speak from my limited knowledge of the Irish bridge scene. As stated >previously there was a law case a few years back involving similar >circumstances. > Now maybe you've been lucky to date or possibly are experienced enough not >to get embroiled in such a case - but surely just the possibility - should in >its self influence the Laws of bridge to avoid such an occurence ?? Hence my >proposal to apply a blanket ban. > >In reality all it needs is one or two public cases and I would venture a TD >would become very wary of not accepting the misbid claim. How does this differ from judging there was a hesitation after a player has said "I did not hesitate."? In practice it is becoming known in many many different circumstances that self-serving statements are ascribed less weight than other ones when making judgements. I think you will find that the courts would see it this way - after all the courts daily judge that self-serving statements are 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 Sat Mar 16 03:11:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2FGAtE05258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:10:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2FGAkH05241 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 03:10:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.74.166]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GT0001DJV4O71@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 18:00:26 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:59:11 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001f01c1cc3a$59eda300$a64a003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I can see no reason you or anybody should have any qualms about opening this hand 1 NT [maybe it's abit too strong] I certainly don't think it's too imaginative. Well I also don't know how it can fit into the 'straight jacket' of full diclosure.So you can imagine what I think about full disclosure. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Illegal bid + ruling > In-Reply-To: > Richard Hills wrote: > > > > Let us get our definitions correct. Firstly, a true psyche is where > > all three opponents are misled; a pseudo-psyche is more accurately > > known as a Concealed Partnership Understanding. > > Let us get our definitions correct. It matters not one whit how many of > the other players *are* misled. Any or all of them may not be misled > because their experience of the game/actual holding makes it clear to them > what is going on. The laws just say "A deliberate and gross misstatement > of honour strength or suit length." I think this is a little > woolly/unhelpful. And would prefer something like "Any call deliberately > made in the full knowledge that an alternative call is clearly a better > description of the actual holding according to the partnership > agreements." > > Perhaps they mean the same thing. If a playing weak NT, 4CM I choose to > open 1D on eg KQTx,AJx,xxx,AJx then I consider it a psyche (whereas 1C or > 1N I don't). However I can't convince myself that it can be called a > gross misstatement of either honour strength or suit length when > KQx,AJx,xxxx,AJx is an obviously systemic 1D opener. Perhaps instead we > could try "A deliberate attempt to mislead opponents by misstating the > honour strength/suit length of the hand." > > Playing a weak NT the other day 3rd in hand, nvul vs vul I opened 1N on > Kxx,Tx,AK98xx,xx without even thinking that I might be psyching and yet > this is apparently more of a distortion than the above. > > Even when we have our definition of a psyche firmed up there is still an > awful lot of ground to cover before we can begin to consider a psyche as a > CPU. A "PU" can only be "C" if a) an opposing pair cannot reasonably be > expected to understand its meaning, and b) it has not been disclosed in > accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation. > I am not sure what regulations your SO has in such matters. > > 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 Sat Mar 16 04:59:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2FHwKt15684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 04:58:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2FHwBH15669 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 04:58:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2FHluK24502 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:47:56 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:47 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] not self serving 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: > >You suggested an in tempo bid of 3S to the original > >problem. Alain looked at the problem rather more > >deeply and identified 3 (possibly 4) hearts as the > >likely solution. > > "The" is too strong a word. Law 16 merely states > that LAs demonstrably suggested by UI are illegal. If > there are multiple legal LAs remaining after exclusion > of illegal LAs, then any such call may be chosen. > Since both 3S and 4H are LAs _not_ demonstrably > suggested by the UI, both 3S and 4H are legal under L16. That is a possible conclusion of analysis. So is the conclusion that the UI suggests that 3S is likely to prove more successful than 4H. So is the conclusion that 3S is not an LA after all. You can't arrive at these sort of conclusions by "a simple pruning of illegal options". First the LAs must be identified and then each must be examined against every other in order to establish whether it might, in fact, be demonstrably suggested. Look it at another way. If the L16 analysis is simple then L73c will easily lead to the same conclusion. If the L16 analysis is complex L73c allows a player to make a call that "feels right" and suggest calling the director at the end of the hand (end of auction if declarer/dummy) if he feels opponents may have been damaged. If players follow 73c like that we don't *need* them to try and follow 16a at the table in the middle of an auction. > Double squeezes place a requirement that can often > require several minutes to work through. However it is quite legal to decide "this ones two difficult for me", I'll just play on and hope for the best. > Recommended > solution for you to save time is: > > 1. Announcing that you are claiming on a double > squeeze. > 2. Unimpressed opponents ask you to play the hand > out. > 3. Unimpressed opponents opinion justified when you > mistime the play in the double squeeze. > 4. Lengthy AC hearing gives you your contract after > all. Which is a fairly stupid way of approaching it. Either you call the TD after 2. (if playing duplicate) or you play it out and write the score for messing it up (if playing rubber). If you are sufficiently confused to fail to call the TD and then mistime the play the AC will, as obliged by law, disregard that fact when evaluating the claim. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 16 06:25:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2FJPA224860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 06:25:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mirapoint.inter.net.il (mirapoint.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2FJP0H24847 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 06:25:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-10-11.inter.net.il [213.8.10.11]) by mirapoint.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id BGD20782; Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:14:10 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3C92497F.A43241FD@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 21:20:32 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Quango References: <$RAlG5AmLiJ8EwGt@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004501c18c21$21cd5a00$43afa03f@mom> <$wJ1eTBBRzJ8EwUJ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Condolences from Dany and the whole gang here. Sorry , this is my first message I answer after a long time I was busy and couldn't deal with the BLML. I apologize a priori if will answer some "old" message , if I'll think it very important. P.S. HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!!!!! Even if sent so late Dany David Stevenson wrote: > Nancy writes > >How sad to hear of the departure of Quango. We will all miss hearing from > >him. Condolences to all :....(( > > >From: "Nanki Poo" > > >> Quango went to Rainbow Bridge today aged 14. He was happy up to the > >> end. > >> > >> Liz, David and I will miss him. > > Thanks to Nancy and others for their expressions of sympathy. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 16 17:43:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2G6Y6401400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:34:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta06bw.bigpond.com (mta06bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2G6XwH01386 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:33:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from master.bigpond.net.au ([144.135.24.75]) by mta06bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GT1Z3800.7J4 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:23:32 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-137-66-7.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.66.7]) by bwmam03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 26/976948); 16 Mar 2002 16:23:32 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020316170637.02457ad8@bigpond.net.au> X-Sender: ardelm@bigpond.net.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:23:19 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I promised to put one of my rulings before the usual appeals committee; South dealer, EW vul. J 2 Q J 10 8 7 4 2 K 6 Q 5 9 5 K 6 3 ---- A K 9 6 Q J 9 8 5 4 A 10 7 3 J 10 9 8 6 A 2 A Q 10 8 7 4 5 3 2 K 7 4 3 The bidding West North East South 2D(1) 2NT X 3NT pass 4D pass 5D all pass Facts. 1) South's multi was alerted and explained. 2) West's 2NT was not alerted (in Aust. that means it is to play) 3) North's double said bid your weak major 4) East's 3NT was to play. Apparently by system 2NT over a weak bid should have been strong 16+ and to play. She didn't bid 6 because she was worried about North's double. 5) West's 4D bid was accompanied by considerable hesitation. 6) East "knew" partner had misbid, but forgot to alert. She still wanted to play 3NT, and was strong enough to bid 5D when her partner mentioned diamonds. I was called when West bid 4D. 5D went 2 off for -200. I decided that West's bid might have been influenced by partner's failure to alert. Result ruled back to 3NT -4 for -400. Does anyone feel that West can bid in this situation? Cheers, 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 Sat Mar 16 21:02:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2GA07M20129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:00:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2G9xvH20109 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 20:59:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1678.bb.online.no [80.212.214.142]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA00571 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:49:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000b01c1cccf$e1ddf180$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020316170637.02457ad8@bigpond.net.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:49:19 +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 > South dealer, EW vul. > > J 2 > Q J 10 8 7 4 2 > K 6 > Q 5 > > 9 5 K 6 3 > ---- A K 9 6 > Q J 9 8 5 4 A 10 7 3 > J 10 9 8 6 A 2 > A Q 10 8 7 4 > 5 3 > 2 > K 7 4 3 > > The bidding > South West North East > 2D(1) 2NT X 3NT > pass 4D pass 5D > all pass > > Facts. > > 1) South's multi was alerted and explained. > 2) West's 2NT was not alerted (in Aust. that means it is to play) > 3) North's double said bid your weak major > 4) East's 3NT was to play. Apparently by system 2NT over a weak > bid should have been strong 16+ and to play. She didn't bid 6 > because she was worried about North's double. > 5) West's 4D bid was accompanied by considerable hesitation. > 6) East "knew" partner had misbid, but forgot to alert. She still > wanted to play 3NT, and was strong enough to bid 5D when her > partner mentioned diamonds. > > I was called when West bid 4D. 5D went 2 off for -200. At this time (as we rule in Norway) you should not have interfered in any way with the auction, and as I understand you did not. > > I decided that West's bid might have been influenced by partner's > failure to alert. Result ruled back to 3NT -4 for -400. > > Does anyone feel that West can bid in this situation? Apparently from your description West has forgotten their system and intended 2NT to show both minors. Assuming this had been correct what should the 3NT bid by East mean? West shall be compelled to make his call after 3NT as if he still believes his 2NT bid shows both minors. He is not allowed to "discover" from partners failure to alert or other reactions that he has made a misbid. If you rule that 3NT in that case (NOT according to the actual agreements!!!) would have been for play then West had no reason to bid 4D, he has already told his story. If however you find that the 3NT bid would have been a request for West to select between his minors then the 4D bid by West is OK (as a response to the 3NT "request" which he should probably have alerted as being a conventional call). It would have been wrong by East to alert the 2NT bid "because she understood" that West had misbid. Opponents shall have information on the agreements, not on what East can see is the actual situation in West. And East is free to bid 5D if that is based upon her understanding of the actual situation (and not upon "concealed" experience with partner). Note. This is how we rule in Norway, regulations and practice elsewhere in the world may be different, but I believe our practice is fair and consistent with 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 Sat Mar 16 21:24:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2GANM322463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:23:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2GANEH22452 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 21:23:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 3234 invoked by uid 504); 16 Mar 2002 10:12:55 -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 1.546583 secs); 16 Mar 2002 10:12:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.190) by 0 with SMTP; 16 Mar 2002 10:12:54 -0000 Message-ID: <003301c1ccd2$c17d5720$be16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020316170637.02457ad8@bigpond.net.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 23:10:08 +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: Tony Musgrove To: Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2002 7:23 PM Subject: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? > > I promised to put one of my rulings before the usual appeals committee; > > South dealer, EW vul. > > J 2 > Q J 10 8 7 4 2 > K 6 > Q 5 > > 9 5 K 6 3 > ---- A K 9 6 > Q J 9 8 5 4 A 10 7 3 > J 10 9 8 6 A 2 > A Q 10 8 7 4 > 5 3 > 2 > K 7 4 3 > > The bidding > West North East > South > 2D(1) > 2NT X 3NT > pass > 4D pass 5D > all pass > > Facts. > > 1) South's multi was alerted and explained. > 2) West's 2NT was not alerted (in Aust. that means it is to play) > 3) North's double said bid your weak major > 4) East's 3NT was to play. Apparently by system 2NT over a weak bid should > have been strong > 16+ and to play. She didn't bid 6 because she was worried about > North's double. > 5) West's 4D bid was accompanied by considerable hesitation. > 6) East "knew" partner had misbid, but forgot to alert. She still wanted > to play 3NT, and was strong enough to bid 5D when her partner mentioned > diamonds. > > I was called when West bid 4D. 5D went 2 off for -200. > > I decided that West's bid might have been influenced by partner's failure > to alert. Result > ruled back to 3NT -4 for -400. > > Does anyone feel that West can bid in this situation? > I am sure someone does but its not me. > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 17 03:07:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2GG5ea28532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:05:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2GG5UH28517 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 03:05:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from laval (PPP18.UQuebec.CA [192.77.50.18]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA01426; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:55:07 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 10:56:00 -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 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020316170637.02457ad8@bigpond.net.au> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony wrote: I promised to put one of my rulings before the usual appeals committee; South dealer, EW vul. J 2 Q J 10 8 7 4 2 K 6 Q 5 9 5 K 6 3 ---- A K 9 6 Q J 9 8 5 4 A 10 7 3 J 10 9 8 6 A 2 A Q 10 8 7 4 5 3 2 K 7 4 3 The bidding West North East South 2D(1) 2NT X 3NT pass 4D pass 5D all pass Facts. 1) South's multi was alerted and explained. 2) West's 2NT was not alerted (in Aust. that means it is to play) 3) North's double said bid your weak major 4) East's 3NT was to play. Apparently by system 2NT over a weak bid should have been strong 16+ and to play. She didn't bid 6 because she was worried about North's double. 5) West's 4D bid was accompanied by considerable hesitation. 6) East "knew" partner had misbid, but forgot to alert. She still wanted to play 3NT, and was strong enough to bid 5D when her partner mentioned diamonds. I was called when West bid 4D. 5D went 2 off for -200. I decided that West's bid might have been influenced by partner's failure to alert. Result ruled back to 3NT -4 for -400. Does anyone feel that West can bid in this situation? ___________________________________________________________________________ According to information you gave, 2NT seems to be a misbid (as defined by Law 75) but West must not use information coming from East failure to alert. The key is "what 3NT is suppose to be". If it is to play there, how come West bid 4D without using UI ? I would rule like you: back to 3NT. I know, some Wests will argue that they suddenly awoke and realised they misbid without using the failure to alert, but my sympathy goes to NOS. 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 Sun Mar 17 04:12:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2GHBOe05070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 04:11:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2GHBFH05050 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 04:11:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-023.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.215] helo=oemcomputer) by mail2.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16mHXs-0004bJ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 17:00:41 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:59:38 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1CD0B.F52D3700.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:59:37 -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 West bid 2NT (Minors in his mind), West must assume that East Alerted 2NT as Minors. Now if East's 3NT is to play then Pass is a logical alternative for West. The failure to alert is UI, and this UI suggests 4D over Pass so Tony 3NT-4 looks good. Best regards, Fearghal. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Musgrove [SMTP:ardelm@bigpond.net.au] Sent: 16 March 2002 06:23 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? I promised to put one of my rulings before the usual appeals committee; South dealer, EW vul. J 2 Q J 10 8 7 4 2 K 6 Q 5 9 5 K 6 3 ---- A K 9 6 Q J 9 8 5 4 A 10 7 3 J 10 9 8 6 A 2 A Q 10 8 7 4 5 3 2 K 7 4 3 The bidding West North East South 2D(1) 2NT X 3NT pass 4D pass 5D all pass Facts. 1) South's multi was alerted and explained. 2) West's 2NT was not alerted (in Aust. that means it is to play) 3) North's double said bid your weak major 4) East's 3NT was to play. Apparently by system 2NT over a weak bid should have been strong 16+ and to play. She didn't bid 6 because she was worried about North's double. 5) West's 4D bid was accompanied by considerable hesitation. 6) East "knew" partner had misbid, but forgot to alert. She still wanted to play 3NT, and was strong enough to bid 5D when her partner mentioned diamonds. I was called when West bid 4D. 5D went 2 off for -200. I decided that West's bid might have been influenced by partner's failure to alert. Result ruled back to 3NT -4 for -400. Does anyone feel that West can bid in this situation? Cheers, 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 17 08:16:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2GLFAG00829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:15:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out008.verizon.net (out008pub.verizon.net [206.46.170.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2GLF0H00812 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 08:15:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mikexp ([63.25.64.229]) by out008.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id <20020316210442.BKYK2959.out008.verizon.net@mikexp> for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 15:04:42 -0600 Message-ID: <000301c1cd2e$78c10570$7502a8c0@mikexp> From: "mike dodson" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C1CD0B.F52D3700.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 13:06:38 -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 Playing devil's advocate: the west hand is substantially below expectation for a vulnerable unusual NT and has an extra diamond and a void for suit play. Only a masochist would want to see partners face when this dummy comes down in 3NT. West didn't bid 2nt with any intention of ever playing no trump so passing 3nt is not a LA even though pulling is suggested by the lack of an alert. I don't think this argument should work with ACBL rules but with a 25% threshold for a LA it might. Another adjustment might have been made: -3 in 6 diamonds. How can E bid only 5 but for W's hesistation. Mike Dodson > -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Musgrove [SMTP:ardelm@bigpond.net.au] > Sent: 16 March 2002 06:23 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? > > > I promised to put one of my rulings before the usual appeals committee; > > South dealer, EW vul. > > J 2 > Q J 10 8 7 4 2 > K 6 > Q 5 > > 9 5 K 6 3 > ---- A K 9 6 > Q J 9 8 5 4 A 10 7 3 > J 10 9 8 6 A 2 > A Q 10 8 7 4 > 5 3 > 2 > K 7 4 3 > > The bidding > West North East > South > 2D(1) > 2NT X 3NT > pass > 4D pass 5D > all pass > > Facts. > > 1) South's multi was alerted and explained. > 2) West's 2NT was not alerted (in Aust. that means it is to play) > 3) North's double said bid your weak major > 4) East's 3NT was to play. Apparently by system 2NT over a weak bid should > have been strong > 16+ and to play. She didn't bid 6 because she was worried about > North's double. > 5) West's 4D bid was accompanied by considerable hesitation. > 6) East "knew" partner had misbid, but forgot to alert. She still wanted > to play 3NT, and was strong enough to bid 5D when her partner mentioned > diamonds. > > I was called when West bid 4D. 5D went 2 off for -200. > > I decided that West's bid might have been influenced by partner's failure > to alert. Result > ruled back to 3NT -4 for -400. > > Does anyone feel that West can bid in this situation? > > > Cheers, > > 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/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 17 09:16:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2GMGJ007271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:16:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2GMG9H07247 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:16:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3690.bb.online.no [80.212.222.106]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA18287 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2002 23:05:46 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000701c1cd36$b9d11520$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <01C1CD0B.F52D3700.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000301c1cd2e$78c10570$7502a8c0@mikexp> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 23:05:41 +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: "mike dodson" > Playing devil's advocate: the west hand is substantially below expectation > for a vulnerable unusual NT and has an extra diamond and a void for suit > play. Only a masochist would want to see partners face when this dummy comes > down in 3NT. > West didn't bid 2nt with any intention of ever playing no trump so passing > 3nt is not a LA even though pulling is suggested by the lack of an alert. True, but the crucial question is: What would have been the meaning of the 3NT bid by East if 2NT were to show both minors? If EW could convince me that it would have been requesting West to select his best minor I would have accepted the 4D bid (but be aware: I am not easily convinced in cases like this!). Otherwise I would have ruled on the assumption that 3NT should be for play, and then West has no business "fleeing" to 4D. 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 Mar 17 19:33:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2H8WuU08638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:32:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2H8WlH08620 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:32:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.161]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GT3000OWZ99J8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:22:23 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:21:08 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? To: Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <002c01c1cd8c$b1a9df20$a14c003e@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: <01C1CD0B.F52D3700.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000301c1cd2e$78c10570$7502a8c0@mikexp> <000701c1cd36$b9d11520$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 3 NT to choose can be accepted only if it is clearly spelled out on the CC. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum Tel Aviv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 12:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? > From: "mike dodson" > > Playing devil's advocate: the west hand is substantially below expectation > > for a vulnerable unusual NT and has an extra diamond and a void for suit > > play. Only a masochist would want to see partners face when this dummy > comes > > down in 3NT. > > West didn't bid 2nt with any intention of ever playing no trump so passing > > 3nt is not a LA even though pulling is suggested by the lack of an alert. > > True, but the crucial question is: What would have been the meaning of the > 3NT bid by East if 2NT were to show both minors? > > If EW could convince me that it would have been requesting West to select > his best minor I would have accepted the 4D bid (but be aware: I am not > easily convinced in cases like this!). Otherwise I would have ruled on the > assumption that 3NT should be for play, and then West has no business > "fleeing" to 4D. > > 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 Sun Mar 17 19:52:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2H8qIf12223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:52:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2H8q9H12206 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:52:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0676.bb.online.no [80.212.210.164]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA28653; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:41:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000901c1cd8f$906a7d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Cc: References: <01C1CD0B.F52D3700.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <000301c1cd2e$78c10570$7502a8c0@mikexp> <000701c1cd36$b9d11520$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002c01c1cd8c$b1a9df20$a14c003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 09:41:38 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > 3 NT to choose can be accepted only if it is clearly spelled out on the CC. > Best regards > Israel Erdenbaum Tel Aviv As i said "I am not easily convinced in cases like this", but requesting 3NT for choose to be spelled out on the CC is obvioulsly wrong for the simple reason that it cannot possibly be the agreement once we know that 2NT showing minors was a misbid! But if in the relevant environment a sufficient number of pairs use 2NT to show minors and have 3NT for choice, or if (against probability) the offending pair can demonstrate (perhaps from old CC's) that they previously had such an agreement, I would tend to accept it. However, I use the 2NT opening for minors myself, and although we have not explicitly spelled that out on our CC, I would use 3NT (over 2NT with or without double) for play. I just wanted with my post to show that TD must consider (and probably dismiss) also one particular possibility which would justify the 4D bid by West before making his ruling. Life isn't always easy, not even for Directors. 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 Mar 18 04:14:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2HHCed01809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 04:12:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2HHCVH01788 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 04:12:32 +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 MAA28091 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:02:10 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 12:03:10 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMRs, East first made on OLOOT with D2, immediatly followed by the proper lead by West with H9. The TD ruled: let first solve the OLOOT. On first trick. The declarer have is 5 classic options: - first 2: accepting the OLOOT; - next 2: requesting of forbiddind D by West; - last: let West play anything. Therafter, if H9 is still on table, it becomes a major penalty card according to Law 50. Practical but.... Readind Law 50-D1 "A major penalty card must be played at first legal opportunity, whether in leading..." If declarer does not accept the OLOOT by East, West now has his "first legal opportunity". The text seems to say that he must then play H9 ? What about D restrictions then ? I hope I am wrong .... Simultaneous leads by defenders or proper lead by a defender followed by a LOOT by the other defender is simple. Proper lead stands and LOOT becomes a major penalty card. IMHO, the above case (LOOT by a defender followed by proper lead by the other defender) is not so clear. May be it should be explicitly covered by the Laws. May be it is.... pl tell me. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 18 05:16:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2HIGLZ06688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:16:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2HIGCH06677 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:16:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g2HI5sd08589 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:05:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <009f01c1cdde$5cf246a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000c01c1c9f4$c1dbdf60$6401a8c0@nc.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] "Alice's Picture" Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:04:10 -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 Nancy T. Dressing wrote: > Have you checked the Friday Bulletin of the NABC's in Houston for the picture of Marv's Alice? She played with Larry Cohen in the Thursday evening game. www.acbl.org Houston Bulletins... Friday As has everyone who wins him as partner in the drawing available to Patron Members for every NABC, Alice enjoyed playing with Larry. She handed him a convention card that featured strong actions, such as disciplined weak twos, 16-18 HCP 1NTs, and strong jump overcalls. So he opened 2D with K10xxxx diamonds, Jxxx clubs, nothing else. And got a top. Then he opened 1NT with 7-2-2-2 distribution. And got a top. One can't criticize success, I guess, but I am not in favor of such unilateral actions by a partner, no matter who it is. Alice had one blunder, but so did Larry. She took out his double of 1NT, turning a top into a bottom, and he ignored her discouraging 2 when he laid down the ace from Ax in her suit, giving declarer a gift of 4H making instead of off one. I guess he didn't trust her signal. Other than that, he bid and played extremely well. As the Bulletin article described, he executed a very nice squeeze on one deal. Alice is one of very few PMs who was not nervous about playing with Larry. Coming out of the world of competitive sports (heptathlon, hurdles, distance running, tennis), in which there is real pressure, she is not intimidated by anyone, opponent or partner, at the bridge table. Marv Marvin L. French . -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 18 05:55:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2HItHD10093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:55:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2HIt8H10074 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:55:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2312.bb.online.no [80.212.217.8]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA15134 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:44:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:44:34 +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: "Laval Dubreuil" > Hi BLMRs, > > East first made on OLOOT with D2, immediatly followed > by the proper lead by West with H9. If "immediately followed" was so immediate that it can be deemed "simultaneous" law 58A applies and the H9 is considered as the (correct) lead to that trick. D2 is then a subsequent card played to the same trick and unless East is void in hearts makes this play a (not yet established) revoke. When is the correct play "simultaneous" with an incorrect play? When the correct play is made so early that it cannot have been influenced in any way by the incorrect play. > The TD ruled: let first solve the OLOOT. That means he has already ruled that West most likely could have been aware of the OLOOT by East when he selected and made his own lead. > On first trick. > The declarer have is 5 classic options: > - first 2: accepting the OLOOT; > - next 2: requesting of forbiddind D by West; > - last: let West play anything. > > Therafter, if H9 is still on table, it becomes > a major penalty card according to Law 50. > > Practical but.... > Readind Law 50-D1 "A major penalty card must be played > at first legal opportunity, whether in leading..." > If declarer does not accept the OLOOT by East, West > now has his "first legal opportunity". > The text seems to say that he must then play H9 ? > What about D restrictions then ? Which restrictions? I don't see the problem. Remember the presumption by TD that West had seen the D2 played by East before playing his own H9. > I hope I am wrong .... > > Simultaneous leads by defenders or proper lead by a defender > followed by a LOOT by the other defender is simple. > Proper lead stands and LOOT becomes a major penalty card. That depends. The LOOT is treated as a card played to that trick before the card played from dummy. It may or may not be an irregularity resulting in penalty. > IMHO, the above case (LOOT by a defender followed > by proper lead by the other defender) is not so clear. It is the same law and equally clear. If there was a feeling that the ruling by TD led to an unfair result, the reason was probably that TD should have applied Law 50A ("simultaneous" plays). 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 Mar 18 05:56:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2HIuPE10214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:56:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2HIuGH10196 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 05:56:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g2HIjud22305 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:45:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <00c601c1cde3$f640d9c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020307163158-r01010800-33615e3b-0904-0109@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Disclosure (was: Enjoy) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 10:44:40 -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: "Ed Reppert" > (Marvin L. French) wrote: > > > I think perhaps the ACBL is not living up to its obligations in regard > > to disclosure requirements, but it's hard to see how they can do better. > > A good first step might be a complete redesign of the CC. No doubt there would > be opposition to that. I was on the phone with Baron Barclay yesterday, and I > asked if they had the new convention card available yet. I was told "no, and we > may not do one at all." Apparently they feel it's too much trouble to redo the > card every time the ACBL changes it. Or perhaps I should say "she feels". BB is > a relatively small company, but even so I'm not sure whether the lady with whom > I spoke was expressing the company's position, or her own opinion. BB had better change their CC, as only the ACBL CC or a reasonable facsmile is allowed in ACBL-sponsored events. The new ACBL convention card was available at the Houston NABC. It includes the following changes: -- A red second x in xx under opening leads, to show that leading low from a weak doubleton has become pre-Alertable. -- A new red box for penalty doubles of overcalls (which have been Alertable for years, actually) -- A new red box for negative doubles that are played thru 4S+ (thru 4H- is non-Alertable) -- Black (non-Alertable) instead of red indicators for responsive, maximal, card-showing, and off-shape takeout doubles -- Weak jump raise of overcalls has its box changed from red to black -- Opening 1NT range indication is now in blue, since all ranges are now Announceable -- There are blue boxes instead of red ones for 1C/1D openings that "may be short," now Announceable -- The red box for negative doubles after partner's 1NT opening is now black, not Alertable -- The box for competitive weak jump raises of opening suit bids has been changed from red to black, not Alertable. (Weak jumps over a pass remain Alerable) -- Non-forcing natural 2NT responses have black instead of red boxes, no longer Alertable -- The red indication for "weak jump shifts" is now applicable to "weak jump shifts not in competition," since competitive jump shifts are no longer Alertable. I think that covers it. BB should be able to make these revisions quite easily. It took me only 20 minutes to change the .bmp version of my CC. Usually there is a grace period for using obsolete CCs in order to allow existing stocks to be exhausted. It seems to me that 9 months, to 1/1/03, would be about right. There has been no official statement on this that I can find. 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 Mar 18 10:44:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2HNi3l09721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:44:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2HNhsH09708 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:43:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g2HNXad19300 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:33:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <016601c1ce0c$245898c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020313080348.00a89f00@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL: Bulletin article on Reisinger decision Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:32:28 -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" . > > It struck me that although the article was nominally about the case and > the decision, it wasn't really. There is a strong contingent within > the ACBL that would like to do away with appeals committees > altogether. Since the Law doesn't permit this, they are campaigning to > overhaul the existing system drastically, arguing, not without merit, > that nothing they might try is likely to be any worse than what we have > now. This group is now seeking to make this decision a "poster case" > for their cause. I suspect that Mr. Manley's not-so-hidden agenda in > writing the article was to promote that viewpoint. > One suggestion that has been made recently is to hire a small group of well-trained professional AC members (5? 10?) for NABCs, who would not play in NABC events. Pay for them with additional card fees, maybe $1.00 per session. AC vs TD decisions/rulings have been discussed and compared in the NABC casebooks and elsewhere as if each group's abilities were at a fixed and unchangeable level. ACBL TDs are about to be subjected to an intense training program, long overdue. I haven't heard anything about improving the abilities of AC members. My suggestion is to fire *en masse* the current AC organization (so as not to hurt feelings, perish forbid), and then create a new organization comprising only those who can pass a rigorous examination. My guess is that a good proportion of current members would not be returning, making room for some Ed Reppert types who have few connections and are not top-level players, but do have lots of smarts. 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 Mar 18 11:05:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2I04rw11843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:04:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lyra (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 g2I04iH11829 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:04:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from john ([196.40.42.25]) by lyra.racsa.co.cr (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GT500CM264HQT@lyra.racsa.co.cr> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:48:20 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 17:44:37 -0600 From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Subject: [BLML] Clear cut or what? To: BLML Cc: Norman Sklar Reply-to: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" Message-id: <000001c1ce0d$e614bce0$192a28c4@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=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk TEAMS - White versus Red, East Dealer North holds: s 75 h KJT864 d K98 c J3 The auction goes 1S-DBL-2S to North's 3H. It then proceeds STOP-4S by East, and South has an "unmistakable hesitiation", before it goes PASS-PASS to North who bids 5H. TD called and players agree on the pause and continue. All pass for down two, N/S -100. #1 - is this clear cut? There is a LA of PASS available. What about partnership tendencies & style, not only of takeout doubles but the advancer's actions as well? Is this an automatic 5H? Would it still be if North had bid 4H the 1st time, and then once again, the tank from South? If the TD feels that North bidding 5H (a LA) "could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information", the TD rules to award an AAS based on the other LA - PASS. Now, the TD must rule on "the most favorable result that was likely" for E/W and "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" for N/S. #2 - this is not clear cut! What is "likely"? Competent declarer play, good declarer play, excellent declarer play, double dummy play? Normal defense, great defense, bad defense? The TD's award for the offenders is "at all probable". Sounds like if it could happen, it happened! So, let's say that the offenders would need great defense not to allow 4S to slip through. Then the offenders, N/S, would be -620. But the innocent side just needs inspired declarer play, or a defensive mistake to make 4S. How do we measure that "likely"? E/W for +620. The other three hands although no real position exists, the cards could be slightly different. Do we need a double dummy analyzer for this? East s ATxxxx h - d Jxx c AQxx South s KJ h AQxx d ATxx c 9xx West s Q98 h 9xx d Qxx c KTxx Thanks for any opinions and help, 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 18 11:28:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2I0Sd614403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:28:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2I0SUH14384 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:28:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-007.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.199] helo=oemcomputer) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16mkrA-0006tP-00; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:18:32 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:16:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1CE12.32BD8960.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'Laval Dubreuil'" Cc: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:16:48 -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 Continue reading the rest of Law 50D1 (The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card, but the penalty card must still be left face up on the table and played at the next legal opportunity) So Diamond restrictions take precedence over the H9. Best regards, Fearghal. -----Original Message----- From: Laval Dubreuil [SMTP:Laval_Dubreuil@UQSS.UQuebec.CA] Sent: 17 March 2002 17:03 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] 2 opening leads Hi BLMRs, East first made on OLOOT with D2, immediatly followed by the proper lead by West with H9. The TD ruled: let first solve the OLOOT. On first trick. The declarer have is 5 classic options: - first 2: accepting the OLOOT; - next 2: requesting of forbiddind D by West; - last: let West play anything. Therafter, if H9 is still on table, it becomes a major penalty card according to Law 50. Practical but.... Readind Law 50-D1 "A major penalty card must be played at first legal opportunity, whether in leading..." If declarer does not accept the OLOOT by East, West now has his "first legal opportunity". The text seems to say that he must then play H9 ? What about D restrictions then ? I hope I am wrong .... Simultaneous leads by defenders or proper lead by a defender followed by a LOOT by the other defender is simple. Proper lead stands and LOOT becomes a major penalty card. IMHO, the above case (LOOT by a defender followed by proper lead by the other defender) is not so clear. May be it should be explicitly covered by the Laws. May be it is.... pl tell me. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 18 12:07:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2I16Tw18398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:06:30 +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 g2I16LH18381 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:06:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-185.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.185] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16mlRT-0006Yk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:56:03 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020317195018.00b4c760@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 19:57:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? In-Reply-To: <000301c1cd2e$78c10570$7502a8c0@mikexp> References: <01C1CD0B.F52D3700.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 04:06 PM 3/16/02, mike wrote: >Playing devil's advocate: the west hand is substantially below expectation >for a vulnerable unusual NT and has an extra diamond and a void for suit >play. Only a masochist would want to see partners face when this dummy >comes >down in 3NT. >West didn't bid 2nt with any intention of ever playing no trump so passing >3nt is not a LA even though pulling is suggested by the lack of an alert. I concur. It's not like West has what East might expect for an unusual 2NT; he has far less, and can't expect to make nine tricks in 3NT when East bid it expecting a normal unusual (pardon the phrase). So I think his 4D bid should be allowed to stand. It's East's bidding that concerns me. >I don't think this argument should work with ACBL rules but with a 25% >threshold for a LA it might. > >Another adjustment might have been made: -3 in 6 diamonds. How can E bid >only 5 but for W's hesistation. That sound right 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 Mon Mar 18 21:32:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2IAUkP16745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:30:47 +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 g2IAUbH16729 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:30:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2IAKDm02603 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:20:13 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:20 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020317195018.00b4c760@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > I concur. It's not like West has what East might expect for an unusual > 2NT; he has far less, and can't expect to make nine tricks in 3NT when > East bid it expecting a normal unusual (pardon the phrase). So I think > his 4D bid should be allowed to stand. It's East's bidding that > concerns me. I think East's 3NT and raise to 5D show poor judgement, but does that matter? East has no UI that I can see. East is free, if he so wishes to assume that 2N was intended as unusual, indeed given the HCP of East's hand and the 3 bids already made what else would he assume? I assume that East was secure in the knowledge that 2N over 2D was natural by partnership agreement so he knew he shouldn't be alerting. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 18 23:08:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2IC7dU26486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:07:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2IC7TH26467 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:07:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16mvl1-0004Tu-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 11:57:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 23:16:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: "Laval Dubreuil" > >> Hi BLMRs, >> >> East first made on OLOOT with D2, immediatly followed >> by the proper lead by West with H9. > >If "immediately followed" was so immediate that it can be >deemed "simultaneous" law 58A applies and the H9 is >considered as the (correct) lead to that trick. D2 is then a >subsequent card played to the same trick and unless East >is void in hearts makes this play a (not yet established) >revoke. If it is immediately followed then it is not simultaneous. >When is the correct play "simultaneous" with an incorrect >play? When the correct play is made so early that it cannot >have been influenced in any way by the incorrect play. Not at all. Whether it could have been influenced has no relevance. Two leads are either simultaneous, or one follows the other. -- 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 Mar 19 01:42:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2IEfwj11864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:41:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2IEfnH11845 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:41:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1769.bb.online.no [80.212.214.233]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA29813; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:30:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000d01c1ce89$8402c520$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 15:30:49 +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: "David Stevenson" ....... > >> East first made on OLOOT with D2, immediatly followed > >> by the proper lead by West with H9. > > > >If "immediately followed" was so immediate that it can be > >deemed "simultaneous" law 58A applies and the H9 is > >considered as the (correct) lead to that trick. D2 is then a > >subsequent card played to the same trick and unless East > >is void in hearts makes this play a (not yet established) > >revoke. > > If it is immediately followed then it is not simultaneous. Grattan used the description "Where a legal act is apparently simultaneous with an irregularity" to clarify when law 58 applies. I am not going to rely upon split second decisions and/or photo finishes for this, nor can this possibly be the intentions of the laws. Just think of the possibility: South (a slow moving player) is on the lead, and at the very moment South begins to pull out a card with the apparent intention of playing it East hurries a card on the table, winning this "race" with at least a full second before South manages to complete his play. Would you rule that East has led out of turn and his lead has been accepted by South subsequently playing to the trick? (Possibly even initiating a revoke by South?) Of course if there is a demonstrable sequencing of events (or duration of time after the irregularity before the legal act is initiated) then the legal act is subsequent, period. This can almost always be determined by the Director inquiring how the events actually took place. My line in such a case shall be to use Law 58 if there is reasonable doubt. I do not want to "create irregularities" unneccessarily. > > >When is the correct play "simultaneous" with an incorrect > >play? When the correct play is made so early that it cannot > >have been influenced in any way by the incorrect play. > > Not at all. Whether it could have been influenced has no relevance. > Two leads are either simultaneous, or one follows the other. For the purpose of applying the laws two events can never be considered simultaneous if one of them is legal (see Grattans comment 58.1 to law 58). As far as I can see the laws are silent on cases where two different players "apparently simultaneously" perform irregularities, but then I cannot immediately imagine any such case where the mutual sequence of such irregularities is important for the ruling. (I.e. South on the lead, both East and West make leads out of turn). 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 Mar 19 01:51:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2IEor312775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:50:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2IEoiH12761 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:50:44 +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 JAA28911; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:40:05 -0500 (EST) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 09:41:08 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk When is the correct play "simultaneous" with an incorrect >play? When the correct play is made so early that it cannot >have been influenced in any way by the incorrect play. Not at all. Whether it could have been influenced has no relevance. Two leads are either simultaneous, or one follows the other. David Stevenson _______________________________________________________________________ And I clearly said that the proper lead was made AFTER the OLOOT. As Fearghal pointed out, Law 50D1 says that "obligation to comply with a lead penalty takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card" (it is clearly written into a box of my flow chart on Law 50....). So I understand that if declarer wants the "proper lead" (H9 in this case), he simply have to say: "I do not accept the OLOOT. You lead the other side, the card you want." Then H9 has to be played as a major penalty card and D2 stay on table as an other major penalty card. If right, I think the TD must offer "proper lead" (H9) as an option to declarer. That is my true question. 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 Tue Mar 19 02:42:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2IFgKO18122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:42:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2IFgAH18103 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 02:42:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3003.bb.online.no [80.212.219.187]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15062; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:30:43 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001b01c1ce91$de5cfba0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Laval Dubreuil" , , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:30:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Laval Dubreuil" > When is the correct play "simultaneous" with an incorrect > >play? When the correct play is made so early that it cannot > >have been influenced in any way by the incorrect play. > > Not at all. Whether it could have been influenced has no relevance. > Two leads are either simultaneous, or one follows the other. > David Stevenson > _______________________________________________________________________ > And I clearly said that the proper lead was made AFTER the OLOOT. > As Fearghal pointed out, Law 50D1 says that "obligation to comply > with a lead penalty takes precedence over the obligation to play > a major penalty card" (it is clearly written into a box of my flow > chart on Law 50....). So I understand that if declarer wants the > "proper lead" (H9 in this case), he simply have to say: "I do not > accept the OLOOT. You lead the other side, the card you want." > Then H9 has to be played as a major penalty card and D2 stay on table > as an other major penalty card. If right, I think the TD must offer > "proper lead" (H9) as an option to declarer. That is my true question. > > Laval Du Breuil Once it is clear that law 58 does not apply because the "proper" lead was subsequent to the OLOOT then leading the H9 is a separate irregularity with the penalty that H9 becomes a major penalty card regardless of which alternative declarer selects for the OLOOT case. Which means that if declarer requests a diamond played from West H9 remains a penalty card, with all other alternatives West will have to play his H9 at his first legal opportunity (including if declarer "lets West play any card he wants"). Of course TD could elaborate on this for the declarer, but the laws are clear and so should the situation be for the declarer after an ordinary description of his alternatives given by TD. 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 Mar 19 06:22:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2IJL9g10805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:21:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from out004.verizon.net (out004slb.verizon.net [206.46.170.16] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2IJKxH10793 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 06:21:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mikexp ([63.25.64.202]) by out004.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP id <20020318191045.NUOG21585.out004.verizon.net@mikexp>; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:10:45 -0600 Message-ID: <007b01c1ceb0$e3ae4720$7502a8c0@mikexp> From: "mike dodson" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:54:02 -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 The original problem specified a hesitation before West's 4D, so there is UI on that side too. Mike Dodson ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:20 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? > In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020317195018.00b4c760@pop.starpower.net> > Eric wrote: > > > I concur. It's not like West has what East might expect for an unusual > > 2NT; he has far less, and can't expect to make nine tricks in 3NT when > > East bid it expecting a normal unusual (pardon the phrase). So I think > > his 4D bid should be allowed to stand. It's East's bidding that > > concerns me. > > I think East's 3NT and raise to 5D show poor judgement, but does that > matter? East has no UI that I can see. East is free, if he so wishes to > assume that 2N was intended as unusual, indeed given the HCP of East's > hand and the 3 bids already made what else would he assume? I assume that > East was secure in the knowledge that 2N over 2D was natural by > partnership agreement so he knew he shouldn't be alerting. > > 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 Tue Mar 19 07:01:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2IK1PQ15618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 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 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 g2IK1FH15604 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:01:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2IJosu01962 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:50:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:45:16 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020318145056-r01010800-0885df5a-0904-0108@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 3/17/02 at 11:16 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > Not at all. Whether it could have been influenced has no relevance. > Two leads are either simultaneous, or one follows the other. Eyewitnesses are notoriously bad at getting sequences of events right. I would think the question revolves around whether the person who was supposed to be on lead was paying attention to *his* hand and his choice of lead, or to what was going on around him - and I would expect the former is more likely than the latter. If he made his lead and was unaware of his partner's LOOT, then I would call that "simultaneous" in the sense of the Law. Now, you may tell me that it would difficult or impossible for a TD called after the fact to determine if this is the case, and I would have to defer to your experience, but I think it is still true that the TD needs to ask questions not only about what people saw (or thought they saw) but about what was going through the proper leader's mind (IE, what he was concentrating on) at the time, before he makes a judgement on the "simultaneity" of the leads. 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 Mar 19 07:05:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2IK50U16020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:05:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ux1.cts.eiu.edu ([139.67.8.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2IK4dH15991 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 07:04:44 +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 g2IJrwV11611; Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:53:58 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020318133001.00a44ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:55:41 -0600 To: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Clear cut or what? Cc: BLML , Norman Sklar In-Reply-To: <000001c1ce0d$e614bce0$192a28c4@john> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't usually answer questions like this, but since I haven't seen any posts on this yet I thought I'd fire off my two cents worth. Feel free to flame my answer--I'm not very good at these sorts of problems. At 05:44 PM 3/17/02 -0600, John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF wrote: >TEAMS - White versus Red, East Dealer >North holds: >s 75 >h KJT864 >d K98 >c J3 >The auction goes 1S-DBL-2S to North's 3H. >It then proceeds STOP-4S by East, and South >has an "unmistakable hesitiation", before >it goes PASS-PASS to North who bids 5H. >TD called and players agree on the pause and continue. >All pass for down two, N/S -100. > >#1 - is this clear cut? There is a LA of PASS available. What about > partnership tendencies & style, not only of takeout doubles but the > advancer's actions as well? Is this an automatic 5H? Would it still > be if North had bid 4H the 1st time, and then once again, the tank > from South? PASS would certainly be a LA for my own partnership in this auction--DBL plus pass over 4S by my partner would absolutely guarantee that 5H was going down, while there would be a very good chance that 4S was going down, too. I doubt if there are many partnerships for which PASS is not a LA. >If the TD feels that North bidding 5H (a LA) "could demonstrably have >been suggested over another by the extraneous information", This I think is far more controversial. My partner hesitates over 4S and then passes. What was he thinking about? Well, obviously he was thinking about bidding 5H or doubling. I can think of many hands partner could hold that would warrant serious consideration of a double. In fact, in my own partnership my partner would go on to 5H with a borderline hand, so the fact that he thought and passed would actually suggest to me _not_ to bid on. I am not at all sure that the hesitation conveys any information to me that the bidding itself doesn't indicate. Again, at least with my own partnership I would say that bidding on to 5H would likely _not_ be a winning action. >the TD rules to award an AAS based on the other LA - PASS. Now, >the TD must rule on "the most favorable result that was likely" for E/W >and "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" for N/S. [snip] >The other three hands although no real position exists, the cards could be >slightly different. Do we need a double dummy analyzer for this? It looks to me like on these cards 4S can be beaten with normal defense, and therefore 5H -2 is a good result, and therefore table result stands. But I'm not a great player, and I may be missing something obvious. FWIW. We don't need a double-dummy engine, all we need to do is look at the cards and ask what are the most likely ways for this hand to get played in 4S at the level of the tournament you are directing. It looks to me just off the top of my head as if this hand would virtually always yield 9 tricks in spades with this bidding. If I've missed something, I am sure East will be happy to point it out to me. :) >East >s ATxxxx >h - >d Jxx >c AQxx > >South >s KJ >h AQxx >d ATxx >c 9xx > >West >s Q98 >h 9xx >d Qxx >c KTxx I say table result stands, because the bid was not indicated by the hesitation, and there was no damage even if it had been, subject to inquiry about methods regarding the former question and about line of play with regard to the latter. FWIW. >Thanks for any opinions and help, >John 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 Mar 19 10:01:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2IN0vu05828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:00:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu (col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu [128.206.7.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2IN0mH05814 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:00:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:50:28 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000001c1ce0d$e614bce0$192a28c4@john> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:08:22 -0600 To: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: [BLML]: Other hesitations? X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2002 22:50:28.0409 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CBCFA90:01C1CECF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Mac Gregor wrote: >TEAMS - White versus Red, East Dealer >North holds: >s 75 >h KJT864 >d K98 >c J3 >The auction goes 1S-DBL-2S to North's 3H. >It then proceeds STOP-4S by East, and South >has an "unmistakable hesitiation", before >it goes PASS-PASS to North who bids 5H. >TD called and players agree on the pause and continue. >All pass for down two, N/S -100. > >#1 - is this clear cut? There is a LA of PASS available. What about > partnership tendencies & style, not only of takeout doubles but the > advancer's actions as well? Is this an automatic 5H? Would it still > be if North had bid 4H the 1st time, and then once again, the tank > from South? > (snip) This brings me to ask what "an unmmistakable hesitation" is. I assume it is something longer than the 10 sec (more or less) that ACBL stop card regulations seem to require. The CACBF regulations don't seem to make it clear how long the pause should be, and they seem to put control of the pause in the hands of the skip bidder. (I quote below the CACBF regulations.) A hesitation(?) example from two weeks ago: I was watching. The auction went W N E S P P 1D P 1S P 4S P 4NT P 5H P 5S* P 6S** X P P P * Slow by many people's standards. Not called slow by any players at the table. This player is a slow bidder, and very slow in auctions like this. (I've been her partner in maybe 700 sessions over the years, so I know she is slow and a serious underbider much of the time. At another table, west opened 1S, partner raised to 3S(game force) and RHO bid 4C, getting the club lead that would beat 6S. In the present case, the doubler led the CA out of turn and 6 was made with an overtrick.) **He held an undisclosed void. They do not have agreed void-showing methods. So, what's an unmistakable hesitation for this sort of situation? My speed or her speed? Does knowledge of partner's proclivities ever justify raising a Blackwood sign-off bid of 5 to 6? How about an undisclosed void? CACBF regulations: Unless screens are in use, use of the Stop card is required for all jump bids. The Stop card is placed in front of your LHO before you make your call. When your LHO has had time to consider his action, you remove the Stop card and he may then make his call. The Tournament Director card is the method of halting the game at your table until a Director can be summoned. >From http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/laws/caconlne.html 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 Mar 19 10:26:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2INQcj08419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:26:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2INQTH08400 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:26:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3585.bb.online.no [80.212.222.1]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA13339 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:16:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004c01c1ced2$e014d440$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: Re: [BLML]: Other hesitations? Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:16:03 +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 From: "Robert E. Harris" ...... I do not think I will engage in a discussion on this particular case, but please remember that the laws do not use "hesitation" as a source for UI, they use the term "variatioin in tempo". So if your partners' style in this auction does not deviate significantly from her normal style she can hardly be accused of passing UI to you. > This brings me to ask what "an unmmistakable hesitation" is. I assume it > is something longer than the 10 sec (more or less) that ACBL stop card > regulations seem to require. The CACBF regulations don't seem to make it > clear how long the pause should be, and they seem to put control of the > pause in the hands of the skip bidder. (I quote below the CACBF > regulations.) > > A hesitation(?) example from two weeks ago: I was watching. The auction went > W N E S > P P 1D P > 1S P 4S P > 4NT P 5H P > 5S* P 6S** X > P P P > > * Slow by many people's standards. Not called slow by any players at the > table. This player is a slow bidder, and very slow in auctions like this. > (I've been her partner in maybe 700 sessions over the years, so I know she > is slow and a serious underbider much of the time. At another table, west > opened 1S, partner raised to 3S(game force) and RHO bid 4C, getting the > club lead that would beat 6S. In the present case, the doubler led the CA > out of turn and 6 was made with an overtrick.) > > **He held an undisclosed void. They do not have agreed void-showing methods. > > So, what's an unmistakable hesitation for this sort of situation? My speed > or her speed? Does knowledge of partner's proclivities ever justify > raising a Blackwood sign-off bid of 5 to 6? How about an undisclosed > void? Yes, if your partnership experience justifies it. But remember that such experience must not be kept concealed from opponents! Undisclosed void? well??? Under law 40A he may make any call he wishes as long as it is not the result of Unauthorized Information from partner.. > > > CACBF regulations: > Unless screens are in use, use of the Stop card is > required for all jump bids. The Stop card is placed > in front of your LHO before you make your call. > When your LHO has had time to consider his > action, you remove the Stop card and he may then > make his call. The Tournament Director card is the > method of halting the game at your table until a > Director can be summoned. This regulation is very similar to what we have in Norway. LHO is not under any circumstance permitted to call while the STOP card is faced on the table. However, if the STOP card is removed before approximately 10 seconds have passed LHO is still entitled to a full 10 second delay (for thought) if he feels he needs it. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 19 20:22:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2J9Lej08262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:21:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2J9LVH08258 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:21:32 +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 KAA23634; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:08:27 +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 KAA03823; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:11:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020319100759.00a63540@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:15:46 +0100 To: "Robert E. Harris" , "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" , BLML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML]: Other hesitations? In-Reply-To: References: <000001c1ce0d$e614bce0$192a28c4@john> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:08 18/03/2002 -0600, Robert E. Harris wrote: >This brings me to ask what "an unmmistakable hesitation" is. I assume it >is something longer than the 10 sec (more or less) that ACBL stop card >regulations seem to require. The CACBF regulations don't seem to make it >clear how long the pause should be, and they seem to put control of the >pause in the hands of the skip bidder. (I quote below the CACBF >regulations.) > >A hesitation(?) example from two weeks ago: I was watching. The auction went >W N E S >P P 1D P >1S P 4S P >4NT P 5H P >5S* P 6S** X >P P P > >* Slow by many people's standards. Not called slow by any players at the >table. This player is a slow bidder, and very slow in auctions like this. >(I've been her partner in maybe 700 sessions over the years, so I know she >is slow and a serious underbider much of the time. At another table, west >opened 1S, partner raised to 3S(game force) and RHO bid 4C, getting the >club lead that would beat 6S. In the present case, the doubler led the CA >out of turn and 6 was made with an overtrick.) AG : if the player in question does take a long time before any bid, then there is absolutely no UI. However, most players with a minimum amount of experience would bid quite quickly in this case when two aces are missing, because they would have prepared their rebids. This means that even a little tempo could be too much. >**He held an undisclosed void. They do not have agreed void-showing methods. AG : when partner signs off, you have to assume she misses two Aces. If you have a useful void, you bid six, don't you ? This has nothing to do with the tempo. I would accept the 6S bid. More so if the void was in the suit I did not cue-bid, like 1S 3S 4C 4H 4NT when holding a D void, because I expect partner to have 2nd round control in diamonds, in which case my void is essential. What about applying the 75% rule ? >So, what's an unmistakable hesitation for this sort of situation? My speed >or her speed? Does knowledge of partner's proclivities ever justify >raising a Blackwood sign-off bid of 5 to 6? AG : no. > How about an undisclosed >void? AG : in most cases, yes. 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 Mar 19 20:33:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2J9XbC08283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:33:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (sss.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2J9XTH08279 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:33:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id KAA02919; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:22:08 +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 KAA16253; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:23:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020319101637.00a6cec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:27:46 +0100 To: "Laval Dubreuil" , "BLML" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:03 17/03/2002 -0500, Laval Dubreuil wrote: >Hi BLMRs, > >East first made on OLOOT with D2, immediatly followed >by the proper lead by West with H9. > >The TD ruled: let first solve the OLOOT. >On first trick. >The declarer have is 5 classic options: >- first 2: accepting the OLOOT; >- next 2: requesting of forbiddind D by West; >- last: let West play anything. > >Therafter, if H9 is still on table, it becomes >a major penalty card according to Law 50. > >Practical but.... >Readind Law 50-D1 "A major penalty card must be played >at first legal opportunity, whether in leading..." >If declarer does not accept the OLOOT by East, West >now has his "first legal opportunity". >The text seems to say that he must then play H9 ? >What about D restrictions then ? >I hope I am wrong .... AG : this case happened at my table not long ago. I was dummy and had ample time to consider the case. I think the director took the right decision : a) if the lead is accepetd, the H9 remains a MPC and penalties might apply thereafter ; b) "lead anything" would compel partner to lead the H9 and of course the diamond is a penalty card, which means that if the H9 makes the trick (unlikely, but in our case the lead was the Heart *Queen*), penalties linked to the diamond may now be applied. c) compelling the D lead is possible, and the H9 remains a penalty card ; d) disallowing the D lead would compel the H9 lead ; this seems inferior to deciding b). Partner decided for a), and at trick 6 took advantage of the PC to make a deep finesse. It must be added that in our case, there were not two OLs in quick succession, but rather West played a spade, and East said 'no, it's mine' and led his HQ %-( 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 Mar 19 20:37:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2J9b0F08296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:37:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (sss.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2J9aqH08292 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:36:53 +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 KAA03645; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:25:27 +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 KAA19633; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:26:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020319102929.00a62c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:31:02 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , "David Stevenson" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads In-Reply-To: <000d01c1ce89$8402c520$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:30 18/03/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > If it is immediately followed then it is not simultaneous. > >Grattan used the description "Where a legal act is apparently >simultaneous with an irregularity" to clarify when law 58 applies. >I am not going to rely upon split second decisions and/or photo >finishes for this, nor can this possibly be the intentions of the >laws. > >Just think of the possibility: South (a slow moving player) is >on the lead, and at the very moment South begins to pull out >a card with the apparent intention of playing it East hurries a >card on the table, winning this "race" with at least a full second >before South manages to complete his play. AG : did Norwegians invent a new form of bridge wherein South partners East ? Or did declarer lead against his own contract ? If it's the former, no doubt the latter must happen sometimes :-P -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 19 20:50:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2J9oXO08313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:50:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2J9oOH08309 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:50:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0216.bb.online.no [80.212.208.216]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA18864; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:39:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008401c1cf2a$080361e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319102929.00a62c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:39:56 +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 From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > At 15:30 18/03/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > > If it is immediately followed then it is not simultaneous. > > > >Grattan used the description "Where a legal act is apparently > >simultaneous with an irregularity" to clarify when law 58 applies. > >I am not going to rely upon split second decisions and/or photo > >finishes for this, nor can this possibly be the intentions of the > >laws. > > > >Just think of the possibility: South (a slow moving player) is > >on the lead, and at the very moment South begins to pull out > >a card with the apparent intention of playing it East hurries a > >card on the table, winning this "race" with at least a full second > >before South manages to complete his play. > > AG : did Norwegians invent a new form of bridge wherein South partners East > ? Or did declarer lead against his own contract ? If it's the former, no > doubt the latter must happen sometimes :-P Did I anywhere indicate that this example concerned the first trick? 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 Mar 19 20:56:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2J9tqq08715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:55:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2J9tgH08691 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 20:55:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0307.bb.online.no [80.212.209.51]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA08805; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:45:10 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008a01c1cf2a$c33522a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020319101637.00a6cec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:45:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" ...... > It must be added that in our case, there were not two OLs in quick > succession, but rather West played a spade, and East said 'no, it's mine' > and led his HQ %-( Two separate irregularities, they are to be handled individually: West lead out of turn (Laws 53 - 56) East taking an action after an irregularity (Law 9B2) 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 Mar 19 21:40:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JAdwW13127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:39:58 +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 g2JAdmH13109 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:39:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2JATQR29926 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:29:26 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:29 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is bidding 4D a crime? 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: <007b01c1ceb0$e3ae4720$7502a8c0@mikexp> Mike Dodson wrote: > The original problem specified a hesitation before West's 4D, so there > is UI on that side too. Sorry, I should have said no "useful" UI. West must surely have already decided to take the 2N as unusual when he bid only 3N. He knows that his pard has a UI problem and I would think that trying to attribute any other interpretation to the hesitation before 4D rather pointless. 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 Mar 19 21:42:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JAft913328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:41:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2JAfkH13313 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:41:47 +1100 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:32:03 +0100 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E640@obelix.spase.nl.200.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: BLML Subject: RE: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:32:02 +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 > > Hi BLMRs, > > East first made on OLOOT with D2, immediatly followed > by the proper lead by West with H9. > > The TD ruled: let first solve the OLOOT. > On first trick. > The declarer have is 5 classic options: > - first 2: accepting the OLOOT; > - next 2: requesting of forbiddind D by West; > - last: let West play anything. > > Therafter, if H9 is still on table, it becomes > a major penalty card according to Law 50. > > Practical but.... > Readind Law 50-D1 "A major penalty card must be played > at first legal opportunity, whether in leading..." > If declarer does not accept the OLOOT by East, West > now has his "first legal opportunity". > The text seems to say that he must then play H9 ? > What about D restrictions then ? > I hope I am wrong .... Read a little further. The same law says: "The obligation to follow suit, or to comply with a lead or play penalty, takes precedence over the obligation to play a major penalty card". Therefore, declarer has the familiar choices; if he requests diamonds, West must play a diamond; if not, then West must play H9. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 19 21:47:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JAlTI13893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:47:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JAlKH13875 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:47:20 +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 LAA19218; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:35:59 +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 LAA08536; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:36:57 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020319113405.00a751e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:41:35 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads In-Reply-To: <008401c1cf2a$080361e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319102929.00a62c80@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 10:39 19/03/2002 +0100, you wrote: > > > > > >Just think of the possibility: South (a slow moving player) is > > >on the lead, and at the very moment South begins to pull out > > >a card with the apparent intention of playing it East hurries a > > >card on the table, winning this "race" with at least a full second > > >before South manages to complete his play. > > > > AG : did Norwegians invent a new form of bridge wherein South partners >East > > ? Or did declarer lead against his own contract ? If it's the former, no > > doubt the latter must happen sometimes :-P > >Did I anywhere indicate that this example concerned the first trick? Oops, sorry. Deep in my heart, I felt there should heve been *some* explanation. (or was my intent badly conveyed by the unorthodox smilie ?) I would then consider South did not, in fact, "take action after an opponent's irregularity" because he didn't know there was an irregularity. This is about the same as bidding over an opponent's bid that should have been alerted and wasn't. East has played OOT. All of South's rights are preserved, including that of accepting the play. South's card is UI to East (and West). But if South doesn't accept East's card, he has to play the one he showed. 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 Mar 19 21:57:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JAunf14885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:56:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JAudH14872 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 21:56:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1084.bb.online.no [80.212.212.60]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03584; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:46:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00fd01c1cf33$49e4d5e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319102929.00a62c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319113405.00a751e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:46:09 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" ..... > > > > > > > >Just think of the possibility: South (a slow moving player) is > > > >on the lead, and at the very moment South begins to pull out > > > >a card with the apparent intention of playing it East hurries a > > > >card on the table, winning this "race" with at least a full second > > > >before South manages to complete his play. > > > > > > AG : did Norwegians invent a new form of bridge wherein South partners > >East > > > ? Or did declarer lead against his own contract ? If it's the former, no > > > doubt the latter must happen sometimes :-P > > > >Did I anywhere indicate that this example concerned the first trick? > > Oops, sorry. Deep in my heart, I felt there should heve been *some* > explanation. (or was my intent badly conveyed by the unorthodox smilie ?) > I would then consider South did not, in fact, "take action after an > opponent's irregularity" because he didn't know there was an irregularity. > This is about the same as bidding over an opponent's bid that should have > been alerted and wasn't. East has played OOT. All of South's rights are > preserved, including that of accepting the play. South's card is UI to East > (and West). But if South doesn't accept East's card, he has to play the one > he showed. > > Best regards, > > Alain. Well, my purpose with this example was to show a case where I no doubt should rule Law 58A: (apparently) "simultaneous lead or play": East made a play out of turn "subsequent" to the lead by South. Any other ruling might lead to a ruthless player (East) gaining an unjustified advantage by "winning the lead race" and according to the letter of the laws requesting that his lead out of turn was accepted by the subsequent play from the correct player. 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 Mar 19 22:09:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JB8li16181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:08:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from NEW-MEDIA.GR ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2JB8ZH16150 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:08:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from pournaras ([192.168.86.21]) by NEW-MEDIA.GR ( IA Mail Server Version: 4.1.4. Build: 1015 ) ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:57:45 +0200 Message-ID: <001f01c1cf34$e6a13c60$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:57:45 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01C1CF45.AA08A1B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_001C_01C1CF45.AA08A1B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The bidding goes: S W N E 1S (pass) 3D* (pass) 3S (pass) ??? 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, = stated stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not = sure about his values. Could be weak or limit" North now bids 4 spades. Ops call the TD. Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum opening bid values) Should the TD let the score stand? ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C1CF45.AA08A1B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The bidding goes:
 
S   W   = N  =20 E
1S (pass) 3D* (pass)
3S (pass) ???
 
 
3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When = ops asked=20 for more information, stated stated that he doesn't really remember = what's=20 the meaning.
 
"All I know is that my partner has a = four card=20 spade fit, but i'm not sure about his values. Could be weak or=20 limit"
 
North now bids 4 spades. Ops call = the=20 TD.
 
Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum = opening bid=20 values)
 
Should the TD let the score=20 stand?
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C1CF45.AA08A1B0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 19 22:12:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JBC6316559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:12:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from NEW-MEDIA.GR ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2JBBsH16534 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:11:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from pournaras ([192.168.86.21]) by NEW-MEDIA.GR ( IA Mail Server Version: 4.1.4. Build: 1015 ) ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:01:08 +0200 Message-ID: <003701c1cf35$5f507810$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? [cont] Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:01:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0034_01C1CF46.22CD6130" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0034_01C1CF46.22CD6130 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I forgot to mention that North has a limit hand with a 4crd spade fit... ------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C1CF46.22CD6130 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I forgot to mention that North has a = limit hand=20 with a 4crd spade fit...
------=_NextPart_000_0034_01C1CF46.22CD6130-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 19 22:48:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JBlio20741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:47:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JBlYH20722 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:47:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1751.bb.online.no [80.212.214.215]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA01995; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:36:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <011101c1cf3a$4df8fa60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Takis Pournaras" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001f01c1cf34$e6a13c60$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:36:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Takis Pournaras" The bidding goes: S W N E 1S (pass) 3D* (pass) 3S (pass) ??? 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, stated stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not sure about his values. Could be weak or limit" North now bids 4 spades. Ops call the TD. Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum opening bid values) Should the TD let the score stand? - - - - - - - - - My reaction: That depends. If the "Bergen raise" is forcing to game then no doubt - yes. On the contrary if it is invitational and North has no additional values to support a raise after South apparently did not accept the invitation I would tend to rule no. In any case South should have a procedural penalty (warning) for not being able to describe properly a convention that cannot be that uncommon in their partnership. (On its face "Bergen raise" looks similar to "mini Splinter" What does it indicate for the suit named in the jump bid?) 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 Mar 19 22:53:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JBqja21318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:52:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JBqVH21290 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:52:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA29586; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:39:27 +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 MAA19215; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:42:09 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020319124039.00a49a50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:46:48 +0100 To: "Sven Pran" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] false acceptation, was : 2 opening leads In-Reply-To: <00fd01c1cf33$49e4d5e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319102929.00a62c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319113405.00a751e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:46 19/03/2002 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >Well, my purpose with this example was to show a case where I no doubt >should rule Law 58A: (apparently) "simultaneous lead or play": East made >a play out of turn "subsequent" to the lead by South. > >Any other ruling might lead to a ruthless player (East) gaining an >unjustified >advantage by "winning the lead race" and according to the letter of the laws >requesting that his lead out of turn was accepted by the subsequent play >from the correct player. AG : this leads to a very interesting question : East plays a plum OOT. South, who declares and who either didn't see the card being played, plays a grape, thinking it is the first card of the trick. North, as is his right, enquires "no more ?". South now realizes what happened. Do we pretend the LOOT was accepted ? - if yes, South must substitute a card ; - if not, South may still disallow the LOOT and penalize the plum. The answer might lie in the order in which we apply the laws, but there are no guidelines for this. Of course, the "fair" soulution would be to consider that South did in fact not act after the LOOT, since he wasn't conscious that there was one, but on which grounds ? Best regards, Alain. >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 Mar 19 23:01:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JC0aJ21991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:00:36 +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 (www.prometheus.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2JC0SH21975 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:00:28 +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 MAA04369; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:49:07 +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 MAA27236; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:50:05 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020319124803.00a62930@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:54:42 +0100 To: "Takis Pournaras" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? In-Reply-To: <001f01c1cf34$e6a13c60$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_12015410==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_12015410==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 12:57 19/03/2002 +0200, Takis Pournaras wrote: >The bidding goes: > >S W N E >1S (pass) 3D* (pass) >3S (pass) ??? > > >3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, >stated stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. > >"All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not sure >about his values. Could be weak or limit" > >North now bids 4 spades. Ops call the TD. > >Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum opening bid values) > >Should the TD let the score stand? AG : this is a difficult case. The answer might depend on the pair's exact conventions, if they have (there is a hint they haven't). In Belgium, some play 3D as either a limit raise, or a game raise with very little interest in slam (no shortness, weak in controls). In this last case, responder will simply bid 4S if partner signs off. If he holds such a hand, there is no LA after the bizarre explanation. I reviewed my CC in the only partnership where I play Bergen, and realized 3C and 3D weren't defined explicitly enough to be able to prove my good faith in such a case. Said pair could have the same problem. If 3D was precisely limit, then responder has UI, and pass is of course a LA. The fact that partner was minimum, and that 4S happens to be right, not because partner had an 'in-between' hand but for some serendipitous placing of the cards, is irrelevant : responder acted using UI. Best regards, Alain. --=====================_12015410==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 12:57 19/03/2002 +0200, Takis Pournaras wrote:
The bidding goes:
 
S   W   N   E
1S (pass) 3D* (pass)
3S (pass) ???
 
 
3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, stated stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning.
 
"All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not sure about his values. Could be weak or limit"
 
North now bids 4 spades. Ops call the TD.
 
Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum opening bid values)
 
Should the TD let the score stand?


AG : this is a difficult case. The answer might depend on the pair's exact conventions, if they have (there is a hint they haven't). In Belgium, some play 3D as either a limit raise, or a game raise with very little interest in slam (no shortness, weak in controls). In this last case, responder will simply bid 4S if partner signs off. If he holds such a hand, there is no LA after the bizarre explanation.
I reviewed my CC in the only partnership where I play Bergen, and realized 3C and 3D weren't defined explicitly enough to be able to prove my good faith in such a case. Said pair could have the same problem.
If 3D was precisely limit, then responder has UI, and pass is of course a LA. The fact that partner was minimum, and that 4S happens to be right, not because partner had an 'in-between' hand but for some serendipitous placing of the cards, is irrelevant : responder acted using UI.

Best regards,

                Alain.

--=====================_12015410==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 19 23:10:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JC9pf22768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:09:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JC9fH22753 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:09:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2044.bb.online.no [80.212.215.252]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA02294; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:59:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <011f01c1cf3d$7dd74860$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "Alain Gottcheiner" References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319102929.00a62c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319113405.00a751e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319124039.00a49a50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] false acceptation, was : 2 opening leads Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:59:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" ..... > >Well, my purpose with this example was to show a case where I no doubt > >should rule Law 58A: (apparently) "simultaneous lead or play": East made > >a play out of turn "subsequent" to the lead by South. > > > >Any other ruling might lead to a ruthless player (East) gaining an > >unjustified > >advantage by "winning the lead race" and according to the letter of the laws > >requesting that his lead out of turn was accepted by the subsequent play > >from the correct player. > > AG : this leads to a very interesting question : East plays a plum OOT. > South, who declares and who either didn't see the card being played, plays > a grape, thinking it is the first card of the trick. North, as is his > right, enquires "no more ?". South now realizes what happened. > Do we pretend the LOOT was accepted ? > - if yes, South must substitute a card ; > - if not, South may still disallow the LOOT and penalize the plum. > > The answer might lie in the order in which we apply the laws, but there are > no guidelines for this. > Of course, the "fair" soulution would be to consider that South did in fact > not act after the LOOT, since he wasn't conscious that there was one, but > on which grounds ? The director shall always try to establish the facts, and as it is a fact here that North obviously considered the play by South as a play to the lead from East, the Director has no choice but to treat it as such. South must have had ample time to recognize the lead out of turn from East before making his own play. Therefore Law 58A cannot be applicable. The ruling: Yes - South has accepted the lead out of turn by East. An alternative situation might offer greater problems for the Director: North doesn't utter a single word, South (after having played his own card) looks surprised at East and asks: Did you play that card? 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 Mar 19 23:14:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JCDrf23221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:13:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2JCDiH23209 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:13:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2JC3Lt14161 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:03:21 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:03:21 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2JC3Lk01982 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:03:21 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:03:21 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03413 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:03:20 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA25898 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:03:20 GMT Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:03:20 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200203191203.MAA25898@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I read four words in the FLB on Sunday that I wasn't previously aware of. L55A. Declarer's Lead Accepted If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This caused me some consternation! Previously, when declarer lead out from the wrong hand or at defenders' turn to lead, I offered both defenders the opportunity to accept the lead (L53). Now it appears I should offer both defenders the opportunity to accept the lead or to require its retraction. What I don't understand is one defender accepts and one requires its retraction? What if RHO requires its retraction and LHO plays to the LOOT, accepting it? What if one defender says "I do not wish to accept the lead", indending that partner may still choose to accept the lead, is that different from requiring its retraction? Help(!) Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 19 23:31:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JCUpi24803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:30:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@xgate.npl.co.uk [139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2JCUfH24791 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:30:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2JCKJE28961 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:20:19 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:20:19 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2JCKJj03534 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:20:19 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:20:19 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA03428 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:20:19 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA25906 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:20:18 GMT Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:20:18 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200203191220.MAA25906@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] L55B nit picking X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reading more of L55 (see previous post "or require its retraction"). L55B. Declarer Required to Retract Lead 1. Defender's Turn to Lead If declarer has led from his or dummy's hand when it was a defender's turn to lead, and if either defender requires him to retract such lead, declarer restores the card led in error to the proper hand without penalty. 2. Lead in Declarer's Hand or Dummy's If declarer has led from the wrong hand when it was his turn to lead from his hand or dummy's, and if either defender requires him to retract the lead, he withdraws the card led in error. He must lead from the correct hand. A number of points. 1. The lead must also be made from the correct hand "if no acceptance statement or play is made" (L53A); so perhaps the text "if either defender requires him to retract such lead" should be: "if no acceptance statement or play is made or either defender requires him to retract such lead". 2. What is the difference between "declarer restores the card led in error to the proper hand without penalty" and "he withdraws the card led in error"? Is there a possibility of a penalty in L55B2? 3. Wouldn't it be better is the two paragraphs 1 & 2 said the same thing? or indeed, were combined? The second sentence of L55B2 is almost superfluous. e.g. If declarer has lead out of turn, and if no acceptance statement or play is made or either defender requires him to retract such lead, he withdraws the card led in error without penalty. When declarer had led from the wrong hand at his turn to lead from his hand or dummy's, he must lead from the correct hand. [ I regard the second sentence as optional. ] Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 19 23:32:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JCW4d24924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:32:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JCVsH24902 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:31:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2388.bb.online.no [80.212.217.84]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA00354 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:21:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <014501c1cf40$98544280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203191203.MAA25898@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:21:27 +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: "Robin Barker" > I read four words in the FLB on Sunday that I wasn't previously aware of. > > L55A. Declarer's Lead Accepted > > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, > either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, > or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This caused me some consternation! > > Previously, when declarer lead out from the wrong hand or at defenders' turn > to lead, I offered both defenders the opportunity to accept the lead (L53). > Now it appears I should offer both defenders the opportunity to accept the > lead or to require its retraction. > > What I don't understand is one defender accepts and one requires its retraction? > > What if RHO requires its retraction and LHO plays to the LOOT, accepting it? > > What if one defender says "I do not wish to accept the lead", indending that > partner may still choose to accept the lead, is that different from requiring > its retraction? > > Help(!) "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen is still a valuable asset although it was written for the 1987 laws. Here we find: 55.1 If declarer leads out of turn from his own or dummy's hand, either of the defenders may accept the lead or require that it be retracted. Immediately one of the defenders states his option the other is bound by it. The defenders may not in any way exchange opinion on the decision before the option is exercised. and 55.2 If no option is exercised the lead will be retracted. Clear? 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 Mar 19 23:54:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JCsLa27286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:54:21 +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 g2JCsCH27272 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:54:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2JCho306289 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:43:50 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:43 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? 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: <001f01c1cf34$e6a13c60$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> pournaras@new-media.gr wrote: > The bidding goes: > > S W N E > 1S (pass) 3D* (pass) > 3S (pass) ??? > > > 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, = > stated stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. > > "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not = > sure about his values. Could be weak or limit" > > North now bids 4 spades. Ops call the TD. We haven't seen North's hand but that may not matter. I can't believe that the actual auction shows anything other than "minimum values" (unless 3D is GF in which case pass is no LA anyway). I don't see how the UI affects that message. Even if there is some obscure inference I'm missing the fact that 5S makes leads me to suspect that bidding 4 is probably a completely clear-cut action > Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum opening bid values) > > Should the TD let the score stand? Yes 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 Mar 20 00:46:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JDkH003134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:46:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JDk9H03122 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:46:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16nJmF-0004ma-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:35:47 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020319082749.00ab3bc0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:37:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" In-Reply-To: <014501c1cf40$98544280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200203191203.MAA25898@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:21 AM 3/19/02, Sven wrote: >"Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge" by Grattan Endicott >and Bent Keith Hansen is still a valuable asset although it was >written for >the >1987 laws. > >Here we find: >55.1 If declarer leads out of turn from his own or dummy's hand, either of >the defenders may accept the lead or require that it be retracted. >Immediately one of the defenders states his option the other is bound >by it. >The defenders may not in any way exchange opinion on the decision before >the option is exercised. > >and 55.2 If no option is exercised the lead will be retracted. ACBL TDs are taught to handle these rulings as follows: (1) Ascertain whether either defender has indicated acceptance or rejection of the LOOT. If so, the (first such) statement stands. (2) If not, ask the player to the left of the LOOT whether he would like to: (a) accept the lead, (b) require a lead from the correct hand, or (c) leave the decision to his partner. (3) If he chooses (c), ask his partner to choose between (a) and (b). (4) If both defenders refuse to choose between (a) and (b), impose (b). 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 Mar 20 01:12:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JEBlW05798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:11:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JEBdH05787 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:11:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16nKAv-0000sF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:01:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020319083917.00b5cd60@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:02:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? In-Reply-To: <011101c1cf3a$4df8fa60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <001f01c1cf34$e6a13c60$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:36 AM 3/19/02, Sven wrote: >(On its face "Bergen raise" looks similar to "mini Splinter" >What does it indicate for the suit named in the jump bid?) With Bergen raises, 3C and 3D are both totally artificial raises of partners 1H/S opening; neither says anything about club or diamond holdings. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 20 01:25:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JEP1W07172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:25:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hera.fmg.uva.nl (hera.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2JEOqH07158 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:24:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from jppals (jppals.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.182]) by hera.fmg.uva.nl (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g2JEECG25935 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:14:13 +0100 (MET) From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 15:11:57 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C1CF58.6975BD00" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: <001f01c1cf34$e6a13c60$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C1CF58.6975BD00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Takis wrote: > The bidding goes: > > S W N E > 1S (pass) 3D* (pass) > 3S (pass) ??? > > 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, stated stated > that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. > > "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not sure about his > values. Could be weak or limit" > > North now bids 4 spades. Ops call the TD. > > Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum opening bid values) > > Should the TD let the score stand? Yes, why not? North has the UI that his partner forgot the convention, but with or without this UI, South's rebid would always have been 3S. So, North bids game at his own risk. Apparently there was a very fortunate lay of the cards, but that is no infraction.... JP ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C1CF58.6975BD00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Takis wrote:
 
 >  The bidding=20 goes:
 >
 >  S  =20 W   N   E
 >  1S (pass) 3D*=20 (pass)
 >  3S (pass)=20 ???
 > 
 > 3D was alerted = as "Bergen=20 raise". When ops asked for more information, stated = stated  
 > that he doesn't = really=20 remember what's the meaning.
 >
 > "All I know is = that my=20 partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not sure about = his  
 > values. Could = be weak or=20 limit"
 >  
 > North now = bids 4=20 spades. Ops call the TD.
 >  
 >  Final result: = 4S+1 (South=20 has minimum opening bid values)
 >
 >  Should the TD = let the=20 score stand? 
 
Yes, why not? North has the UI that = his partner=20 forgot the convention, but with or without this UI, South's rebid = would always=20 have been 3S. So, North bids game at his own risk. = Apparently there was a very fortunate lay = of the=20 cards, but that is no infraction....
 
JP
 
= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C1CF58.6975BD00-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 20 01:44:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JEhxs09182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:43:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2JEhoH09166 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 01:43:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.83]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GT8004165RKHC@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:33:22 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:31:36 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <003101c1cf52$d9217140$344e003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-7 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <001f01c1cf34$e6a13c60$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> <011101c1cf3a$4df8fa60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As we play it here for years Bergen raises are well defined .3 S [H] -4S 0-6 HCP. 3C -4 S [H] 7-10 3 D - 4 S [H] 11-12. Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Takis Pournaras" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 1:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? > From: "Takis Pournaras" > > The bidding goes: > > S W N E > 1S (pass) 3D* (pass) > 3S (pass) ??? > > > 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, > stated stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. > > "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not sure > about his values. Could be weak or limit" > > North now bids 4 spades. Ops call the TD. > > Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum opening bid values) > > Should the TD let the score stand? > > - - - - - - - - - > My reaction: That depends. > > If the "Bergen raise" is forcing to game then no doubt - yes. > On the contrary if it is invitational and North has no additional > values to support a raise after South apparently did not > accept the invitation I would tend to rule no. > > In any case South should have a procedural penalty (warning) > for not being able to describe properly a convention that cannot > be that uncommon in their partnership. > > (On its face "Bergen raise" looks similar to "mini Splinter" > What does it indicate for the suit named in the jump bid?) > > 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 Wed Mar 20 02:23:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JFN3H13691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 02:23:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from NEW-MEDIA.GR ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2JFMnH13657 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 02:22:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from pournaras ([192.168.86.21]) by NEW-MEDIA.GR ( IA Mail Server Version: 4.1.4. Build: 1015 ) ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:12:02 +0200 Message-ID: <002601c1cf58$6c4027a0$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:12:02 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Takis Pournaras] Should the TD let the score stand? [Jan Peter Pals ] Yes, why not? North has the UI that his partner forgot the convention, but with or without this UI, South's rebid would always have been 3S. So, North bids game at his own risk. Apparently there was a very fortunate lay of the cards, but that is no infraction.... --- North has another UI: the possibility that South passed even with a semi-strong (15-17) hand -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 20 02:26:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JFPug13996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 02:25:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2JFPkH13974 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 02:25:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd03.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16nJgj-0008SG-0S; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:30:05 +0100 Received: from (0524190215-0011@[62.224.18.21]) by fwd03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16nJgZ-01ktMnC; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:29:55 +0100 From: PeterEidt@t-online.de (Peter Eidt) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319102929.00a62c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319113405.00a751e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319124039.00a49a50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads, was: false acceptation X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:29:55 +0100 Message-ID: <16nJgZ-01ktMnC@fwd03.sul.t-online.com> X-Sender: 0524190215-0011@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, especially Alain and Sven, hold on please, you're squeezing sense in Law 58 A that isn't intended nor even necessary. Law 58 A deals - as David earlier posted - only with the fact of (total) simultanity of two (or more) leads or plays. What you are looking for - a law which protects a player on lead, who is not aware of an LOOT from an opponent and leads after that LOOT - is clearly captured in Law 53 C. It says (among other things) that the proper lead _does not_ accept the LOOT but remains the proper lead und that all erronous cards will be withdrawn without penalty (but see Law 16 C 2 for a defender). Best regards Peter Eidt Warendorf, Germany Alain Gottcheiner wrote in response to Sven Pran: > > >Well, my purpose with this example was to show a case where I no doubt > >should rule Law 58A: (apparently) "simultaneous lead or play": East made > >a play out of turn "subsequent" to the lead by South. > > > >Any other ruling might lead to a ruthless player (East) gaining an > >unjustified advantage by "winning the lead race" and according to the > >letter of the laws requesting that his lead out of turn was accepted > >by the subsequent play from the correct player. > > AG : this leads to a very interesting question : East plays a plum OOT. > South, who declares and who either didn't see the card being played, plays > a grape, thinking it is the first card of the trick. North, as is his > right, enquires "no more ?". South now realizes what happened. > Do we pretend the LOOT was accepted ? > - if yes, South must substitute a card ; > - if not, South may still disallow the LOOT and penalize the plum. > > The answer might lie in the order in which we apply the laws, but there are > no guidelines for this. > Of course, the "fair" soulution would be to consider that South did in fact > not act after the LOOT, since he wasn't conscious that there was one, but > on which grounds ? > > Best regards, > > Alain. > > > >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 Mar 20 03:22:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JGM1F19960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 03:22:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2JGLqH19948 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 03:21:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16nMCd-000I9V-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:11:13 +0000 Message-ID: <7UI0HbC2nnl8Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 23:36:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads References: <20020318145056-r01010800-0885df5a-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020318145056-r01010800-0885df5a-0904-0108@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 3/17/02 at 11:16 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > >> Not at all. Whether it could have been influenced has no relevance. >> Two leads are either simultaneous, or one follows the other. > >Eyewitnesses are notoriously bad at getting sequences of events right. I would >think the question revolves around whether the person who was supposed to be on >lead was paying attention to *his* hand and his choice of lead, or to what was >going on around him - and I would expect the former is more likely than the >latter. If he made his lead and was unaware of his partner's LOOT, then I would >call that "simultaneous" in the sense of the Law. > >Now, you may tell me that it would difficult or impossible for a TD called after >the fact to determine if this is the case, and I would have to defer to your >experience, but I think it is still true that the TD needs to ask questions not >only about what people saw (or thought they saw) but about what was going >through the proper leader's mind (IE, what he was concentrating on) at the time, >before he makes a judgement on the "simultaneity" of the leads. I do not understand this or other responses in this thread. Two things occur at the table. Either they were simultaneous, or one follows the other. Yes, it often may be difficult to decide which. In this case the poster stated that one followed the other. Why on earth should we decide they were simultaneous? -- 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 Mar 20 04:13:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JH9bC24774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 04:09:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JH9SH24758 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 04:09:29 +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 IAA20988; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:59:09 -0800 Message-Id: <200203191659.IAA20988@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:57:45 +0200." <001f01c1cf34$e6a13c60$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 08:59:08 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Takis Pournaras wrote: > The bidding goes: > > S W N E > 1S (pass) 3D* (pass) > 3S (pass) ??? > > > 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, = > stated stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. > > "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not = > sure about his values. Could be weak or limit" > > North now bids 4 spades. Ops call the TD. > > Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum opening bid values) > > Should the TD let the score stand? According to a later clarification, North had a limit raise. If North had a hand that everyone would go to game on regardless (in other words, not really a "limit" raise), then there's no adjustment. Otherwise, I think there's good reason to adjust. The way I've seen the convention played: playing Bergen raises, 3C and 3D are artificial raises with 4-card support. Bergen's book, Better Bidding with Bergen Vol. II (or maybe it's Vol. I), suggests using 3C as a constructive raise (about 6-9 HCP), 3D as a limit raise (9-11). But many pairs reverse the two (it's probably technically better). So perhaps that's why South was confused: he couldn't remember which way they were playing it. Based on this, North has the UI that South *could* have a hand that would have accepted a limit raise. Since South was confused and thought 3D might have been the constructive raise (or maybe even a weaker raise, if he was really confused?), South might have bid 3S with a hand that he should have gone to game with. North has this UI, and the UI demonstrably suggests overruling partner's signoff and going to game. Thus, North broke the rules, and an adjustment is in order. If North had followed the Laws, he would have passed, for 3S+2, so I adjust to that. The fact that South actually had a minimum hand is irrelevant. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 20 09:00:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JLwmd22616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:58:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JLwcH22601 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:58:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0224.bb.online.no [80.212.208.224]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA12410; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:48:10 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001901c1cf8f$c37ff360$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Peter Eidt" , References: <000d01c1cde3$ce931320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319102929.00a62c80@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319113405.00a751e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5.1.0.14.0.20020319124039.00a49a50@pop.ulb.ac.be> <16nJgZ-01ktMnC@fwd03.sul.t-online.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads, was: false acceptation Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:48:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 for calling my attention to this law! I must admit I was not aware of L53C (should have been!) which perfectly covers the "problems" I saw with possible (literal) interpretations of law 58A. In fact, I believe after a quick lookup that the way I wanted to use L58A is expressed even stronger in L53C regards Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Eidt" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads, was: false acceptation > Hi all, especially Alain and Sven, > > hold on please, > you're squeezing sense in Law 58 A that isn't intended nor even necessary. > > Law 58 A deals - as David earlier posted - only with the fact of (total) > simultanity of two (or more) leads or plays. > > What you are looking for - a law which protects a player on lead, who is > not aware of an LOOT from an opponent and leads after that LOOT - is clearly > captured in Law 53 C. > > It says (among other things) that the proper lead _does not_ accept the > LOOT but remains the proper lead und that all erronous cards will be > withdrawn without penalty (but see Law 16 C 2 for a defender). > > > > Best regards > > Peter Eidt > Warendorf, Germany > > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote in response to Sven Pran: > > > > >Well, my purpose with this example was to show a case where I no doubt > > >should rule Law 58A: (apparently) "simultaneous lead or play": East made > > >a play out of turn "subsequent" to the lead by South. > > > > > >Any other ruling might lead to a ruthless player (East) gaining an > > >unjustified advantage by "winning the lead race" and according to the > > >letter of the laws requesting that his lead out of turn was accepted > > >by the subsequent play from the correct player. > > > > AG : this leads to a very interesting question : East plays a plum OOT. > > South, who declares and who either didn't see the card being played, plays > > a grape, thinking it is the first card of the trick. North, as is his > > right, enquires "no more ?". South now realizes what happened. > > Do we pretend the LOOT was accepted ? > > - if yes, South must substitute a card ; > > - if not, South may still disallow the LOOT and penalize the plum. > > > > The answer might lie in the order in which we apply the laws, but there are > > no guidelines for this. > > Of course, the "fair" soulution would be to consider that South did in fact > > not act after the LOOT, since he wasn't conscious that there was one, but > > on which grounds ? > > > > Best regards, > > > > Alain. > > > > > > >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 Wed Mar 20 09:46:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JMkNl27456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:46:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2JMkDH27433 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 09:46:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d036.iae.nl [212.61.3.36]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C168323B5E for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:34:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000b01c1cf96$1dff5000$24033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:32:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Two OPEN opening leads!!! Oeps. Why not at least the correct opening lead made face down? We should not have met the problem: immediately followed - simultaneous. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 6:03 PM Subject: [BLML] 2 opening leads > Hi BLMRs, > > East first made on OLOOT with D2, immediatly followed > by the proper lead by West with H9. > > The TD ruled: let first solve the OLOOT. > On first trick. > The declarer have is 5 classic options: > - first 2: accepting the OLOOT; > - next 2: requesting of forbiddind D by West; > - last: let West play anything. > > Therafter, if H9 is still on table, it becomes > a major penalty card according to Law 50. > > Practical but.... > Readind Law 50-D1 "A major penalty card must be played > at first legal opportunity, whether in leading..." > If declarer does not accept the OLOOT by East, West > now has his "first legal opportunity". > The text seems to say that he must then play H9 ? > What about D restrictions then ? > I hope I am wrong .... > > Simultaneous leads by defenders or proper lead by a defender > followed by a LOOT by the other defender is simple. > Proper lead stands and LOOT becomes a major penalty card. > IMHO, the above case (LOOT by a defender followed > by proper lead by the other defender) is not so clear. > May be it should be explicitly covered by the Laws. > May be it is.... pl tell me. > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 20 10:13:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2JNCiI00222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:12:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2JNCYH00201 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:12:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1555.bb.online.no [80.212.214.19]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA14874; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:02:01 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004701c1cf9a$16e98340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" References: <000b01c1cf96$1dff5000$24033dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:02:00 +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 1: As Peter Eidt pointed out the "problem" I anticipated with Law 57A does not exist, such cases are perfectly covered in Law 53C. (I feel embarrassed not being aware of that law myself) 2: Law 54 completely covers the case of an opening lead correctly made face down in turn, and at the same time an opening lead out of turn made by the wrong defender. (The correct opening lead which has not yet been faced is retracted and the remainder of Law 54 applies) Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 11:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads > Two OPEN opening leads!!! Oeps. > > Why not at least the correct opening lead made face down? > We should not have met the problem: > immediately followed - simultaneous. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > To: "BLML" > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 6:03 PM > Subject: [BLML] 2 opening leads > > > > Hi BLMRs, > > > > East first made on OLOOT with D2, immediatly followed > > by the proper lead by West with H9. > > > > The TD ruled: let first solve the OLOOT. > > On first trick. > > The declarer have is 5 classic options: > > - first 2: accepting the OLOOT; > > - next 2: requesting of forbiddind D by West; > > - last: let West play anything. > > > > Therafter, if H9 is still on table, it becomes > > a major penalty card according to Law 50. > > > > Practical but.... > > Readind Law 50-D1 "A major penalty card must be played > > at first legal opportunity, whether in leading..." > > If declarer does not accept the OLOOT by East, West > > now has his "first legal opportunity". > > The text seems to say that he must then play H9 ? > > What about D restrictions then ? > > I hope I am wrong .... > > > > Simultaneous leads by defenders or proper lead by a defender > > followed by a LOOT by the other defender is simple. > > Proper lead stands and LOOT becomes a major penalty card. > > IMHO, the above case (LOOT by a defender followed > > by proper lead by the other defender) is not so clear. > > May be it should be explicitly covered by the Laws. > > May be it is.... pl tell me. > > > > Laval Du Breuil > > Quebec City > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 20 11:16:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2K0FTN07555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:15:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2K0FHH07532 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:15:18 +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 g2K04oM15780 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:04:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:58:04 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200203191203.MAA25898@tempest.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: <20020319190457-r01010800-9bea2eac-0904-0108@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 3/19/02 at 12:03 PM, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) wrote: > I read four words in the FLB on Sunday that I wasn't previously aware of. > > L55A. Declarer's Lead Accepted > > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, > either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, > or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > This caused me some consternation! > > Previously, when declarer lead out from the wrong hand or at defenders' turn > to lead, I offered both defenders the opportunity to accept the lead (L53). > Now it appears I should offer both defenders the opportunity to accept the > lead or to require its retraction. > > What I don't understand is one defender accepts and one requires its retraction? > > What if RHO requires its retraction and LHO plays to the LOOT, accepting it? > > What if one defender says "I do not wish to accept the lead", indending that > partner may still choose to accept the lead, is that different from requiring > its retraction? > > Help(!) Help, indeed. :-) It might be helpful if Law or legal interpretation (WBFLC?) specified that the defenders be each offered the following: "You may accept the lead, or you may reject the lead, or you may defer to partner". Whichever partner speaks first, if he defers his partner decides, but if he does not defer, his decision stands. In the absence of such guidance, I think I'd still do it that way. But I'm prepared, as usual , to be told I'm wrong. Okay, having said all that, I dug out Larry Harris' _Bridge Director's Companion_, which says "if there is simultaneousl acceptance and rejection, defer to the defender next to play after the irregular lead" and refers the reader to _Duplicate Decisions_, the ACBL's official guidebook for TDs. I suppose there might be different guidance in the EBU. I also suppose the TD should explain the legal consequences of accepting or rejecting the lead. 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 Mar 20 11:16:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2K0FUN07556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:15:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2K0FIH07533 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:15:18 +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 g2K04rM15843 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:04:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:42:10 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 opening leads To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <7UI0HbC2nnl8Ew27@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: <20020319190500-r01010800-1ab87794-0904-0108@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 3/18/02 at 11:36 PM, bridge@blakjak.com (David Stevenson) wrote: > I do not understand this or other responses in this thread. > > Two things occur at the table. Either they were simultaneous, or one > follows the other. Yes, it often may be difficult to decide which. > > In this case the poster stated that one followed the other. Why on > earth should we decide they were simultaneous? Well, perhaps we got off on a side track. I've now re-read the entire thread, and I'll go ahead and stick my neck out once more: Laval's original question was whether, if declarer rejects the lead IAW Law 54, West *must* lead the H9 in all cases. I believe the answer to that is that, as someone pointed out Law 50D requires, West must first comply with any lead penalty (eg., lead a diamond) imposed by declarer. Later, Laval said "I think the TD must offer "proper lead" (H9) as an option to declarer. That is my true question." In answer to that, I'd say that the TD must explain *all* the options fully before requiring declarer to make a decision. I don't think the shortcut "or you can require him to lead the H9" is really a full explanation, but I've seen worse "explanations" of the Laws; perhaps this one is acceptable. On the question of simultaneity, all I was trying to say, perhaps clumsily, is that it is a matter for TD judgement. In this case the evidence seems clear that the leads were not simultaneous. 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 Mar 20 11:44:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2K0iOE07586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:44:24 +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 g2K0iGH07582 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:44:16 +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 g2K0XpM20787 for ; Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:33:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 19:06:54 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020319193358-r01010800-ecc69cd2-0904-0108@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 3/19/02 at 12:43 PM, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > Even if there is some obscure inference I'm missing > the fact that 5S makes leads me to suspect that bidding 4 is probably a > completely clear-cut action Bergen raises as I've read about them and seen them played define 3C as a "mixed raise" - about 6-9 points and 4 trumps - and 3D as a limit raise - either 4 trumps and about 10-12 points, or that point count, three trumps, and a side shortage. Sometimes the meanings are reversed. In either case, I don't see how responder can have a hand where bidding game is "a completely clear-cut action" after opener bids 3S. It seems to me likely that responder concluded that opener may have mixed up which way 'round they were playing these bids, and took a shot at game just in case it was there. To my not very experienced mind, that seems a little foolish in any case, but the fact that responder has UI that opener was unsure about the meaning leads me to believe that taking the shot is verboten. 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 Mar 20 12:45:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2K1jMd11780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:45:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g2K1jDH11764 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:45:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16nUIZ-000FWj-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:49:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:54:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" References: <200203191203.MAA25898@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200203191203.MAA25898@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes >I read four words in the FLB on Sunday that I wasn't previously aware of. > > L55A. Declarer's Lead Accepted > > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, > either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, > or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >This caused me some consternation! > >Previously, when declarer lead out from the wrong hand or at defenders' turn >to lead, I offered both defenders the opportunity to accept the lead (L53). >Now it appears I should offer both defenders the opportunity to accept the >lead or to require its retraction. Correct. >What I don't understand is one defender accepts and one requires its retraction? He who speaks first speaks for the partnership - and I tell them that. >What if RHO requires its retraction and LHO plays to the LOOT, accepting it? I think you should avoid this as TD! >What if one defender says "I do not wish to accept the lead", indending that >partner may still choose to accept the lead, is that different from requiring >its retraction? No. He has spoken first and he has made a decision for the partnership. -- 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 Mar 20 21:57:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KAtll24484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:55:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hera.fmg.uva.nl (hera.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2KAtbH24463 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 21:55:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from jppals (jppals.fmg.uva.nl [145.18.125.182]) by hera.fmg.uva.nl (8.11.6/8.11.3) with SMTP id g2KAirG14486 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:44:54 +0100 (MET) From: "Jan Peter Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:42:39 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <002601c1cf58$6c4027a0$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > [Takis Pournaras] > Should the TD let the score stand? > > [Jan Peter Pals ] > Yes, why not? North has the UI that his partner forgot the convention, but > with or without this UI, South's rebid would always have been 3S. So, North > bids game at his own risk. Apparently there was a very fortunate lay of the > cards, but that is no infraction.... > > --- > > North has another UI: the possibility that South passed even with a > semi-strong (15-17) hand Could be right, but.... IMO this line of reasoning leads to forbidding North to make any right decision. If you do not allow North to take the shot at 4S, what would have been your ruling if South had actually held a 15-17 hand, North had passed 3S and nine tricks would have been the maximum, all other pairs going down in 4S? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 20 22:14:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KBE1U26316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:14:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2KBDqH26300 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 22:13:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-232-126.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.232.126]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2001112001/PL) with SMTP id g2KB3GaY023294 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 06:03:27 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 06:03:37 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <20020319193358-r01010800-ecc69cd2-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020319193358-r01010800-ecc69cd2-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> 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 Mar 2002 19:06:54 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 3/19/02 at 12:43 PM, twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) wrote: > >> Even if there is some obscure inference I'm missing >> the fact that 5S makes leads me to suspect that bidding 4 is probably a >> completely clear-cut action > >Bergen raises as I've read about them and seen them played define 3C as a "mixed >raise" - about 6-9 points and 4 trumps - and 3D as a limit raise - either 4 >trumps and about 10-12 points, or that point count, three trumps, and a side >shortage. Sometimes the meanings are reversed. In either case, I don't see how >responder can have a hand where bidding game is "a completely clear-cut action" >after opener bids 3S. It seems to me likely that responder concluded that opener >may have mixed up which way 'round they were playing these bids, and took a shot >at game just in case it was there. To my not very experienced mind, that seems a >little foolish in any case, but the fact that responder has UI that opener was >unsure about the meaning leads me to believe that taking the shot is verboten. > I've watched this thread about Bergen raises with some amusement, particularly some of the European guesses at what they were (I'd never heard of them until I joined OKBridge). Ed, according to the authorities I've consulted (Kearse's "Bridge Conventions Complete" and "The Encyclopaedia of Bridge") the whole basis of Bergen raises is that they absolutely *guarantee* four trumps, so I think your three card support with a singleton is at best a non-standard treatment. As regards the main question, I can't see how anyone can possibly allow the 4S bid unless responder has a rock-crusher and has decided to (ab)use Bergen as a way of trying to assess opener's range. (Why?) Apart from this possibility, the strongest hand that Bergen (as I've read it at least, see above) can show is a limit raise. Responder gave a limit raise *and opener declined the invitation*. Unless responder actually has a VERY clear-cut raise to game, it seems to me to be overwhelmingly likely that responder has interpreted opener's comment as possibly showing more than opener's rebid actually promised - in other words, opener may have declined the invitation on the basis that partner had one of the weaker options. If there's *any* possible doubt that responder has a hand that must go to game, then surely the contract *must* be rolled back to 3S? Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 00:00:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KD02j06457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:00:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp013.mail.yahoo.com (smtp013.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2KCxrH06434 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 23:59:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from opaf (AUTH login) at unknown (HELO pournaras) (opaf@212.205.99.24) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2002 12:49:28 -0000 Message-ID: <003501c1d00d$a3ce40c0$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 14:49:07 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Takis Pournaras] North has another UI: the possibility that South passed even with a semi-strong (15-17) hand [Jan Peter Pals ] Could be right, but.... IMO this line of reasoning leads to forbidding North to make any right decision. If you do not allow North to take the shot at 4S, what would have been your ruling if South had actually held a 15-17 hand, North had passed 3S and nine tricks would have been the maximum, all other pairs going down in 4S? Score stands. From North point of view, hadn't he heard the explaination, pass is acceptable since his partner didn't accept the invitation. (With that luck, they will win the tournament anyway ;) _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 00:49:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KDnEn11655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:49:14 +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 g2KDn6H11641 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:49:06 +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 16ngIV-0007KJ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:38:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:36:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Isle of Man MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am off to the Isle of Man for a week. If anyone wants me during that time please try sending emails to or phoning me on my mobile phone +44 7778 449955. -- 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 Mar 21 02:53:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KFqHO24220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 02:52:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie ([194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2KFq8H24203 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 02:52:09 +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 PAA20033 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:41:38 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: "Bridge Laws" Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:40:22 GMT Subject: [BLML] Another pausey case ... X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c98ad66.3d60.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.176 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 S: None H: KJxxxxx D: xx C: AKx You Play 15-17 NT and 4 card suits Dealer West- Game All - Congress Teams N | E | S | W | --------------------------------- 1S | P | 2H | P | 4H | P | 4NT | P | 6H | P | ? | | | *4NT is Keycard **6H shows 2 Keycards, the queen and a working void. West took about 20 secs to bid 6H and finally bid 6H with "achh I dunno". East bid 7H on the basis that if they were missing the DA, 6 wouldn't make so they may as well bid 7. N/S called the TD and he rolled the contract back to 6H+1. E/W appealed and lost the case and their deposit - any comments ?? seems to me that if you are missing -- http://www.iol.ie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 03:24:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KGOQ027755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:24:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2KGOHH27739 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:24:18 +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 g2KGDpM17327 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:13:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:54:54 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020320111359-r01010800-19a8c5fd-0904-0108@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 3/20/02 at 6:03 AM, brian@wellsborocomputing.com (Brian Meadows) wrote: > Ed, according to the authorities I've consulted (Kearse's "Bridge > Conventions Complete" and "The Encyclopaedia of Bridge") the > whole basis of Bergen raises is that they absolutely *guarantee* > four trumps, so I think your three card support with a singleton > is at best a non-standard treatment. Heh. I was going to consult the definitive source (Bergen's "Better Bidding with Bergen"), but of course I can't find my copy right now. IAC, you're probably right - I may have confused Bergen's treatment with Max Hardy's, which similarly uses an artificial limit raise (3C), but puts 3 trumps with a shortage in with the 4 card (no shortage) raise, 3 trumps without shortage going through 1NT. > As regards the main question, I can't see how anyone can possibly > allow the 4S bid unless responder has a rock-crusher and has > decided to (ab)use Bergen as a way of trying to assess opener's > range. [snip] > ... surely the contract *must* be rolled back to 3S? We seem to be in agreement on this point. Well, except... Perhaps I'm too pedantic about it, but constructs like "allow the 4S bid" and "roll back the contract" bug me. The bid was made, and the contract is what it is. What we're considering is *adjusting the score* because of a violation of Laws 73C and 16A. I suppose the argument is that we all know what we mean (at least here on blml), so it's not a problem, but it still bugs me. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 03:26:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KGQ3G27948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:26:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2KGPsH27934 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:25:55 +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 IAA00735; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:15:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200203201615.IAA00735@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:42:39 +0100." Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:15:40 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jan Peter Pals wrote: > > North has another UI: the possibility that South passed > even with a > > semi-strong (15-17) hand > > Could be right, but.... IMO this line of reasoning leads to > forbidding North to make any right decision. North doesn't have a decision here. South opens 1S, North bids 3 of something that shows some sort of below-game raise, South bids 3S---this is a signoff, and North's job is simply to respect that and pass. (In fact, if North passes, he cannot be deemed to be breaking any laws regardless of how much UI he has.) -- 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 Mar 21 03:54:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KGsNx00918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:54:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2KGsEH00900 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 03:54:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2KGhjj08280 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:43:45 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200203201643.g2KGhjj08280@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:43:44 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Takis Pournaras" at Mar 19, 2002 12:57:45 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 Sorry to jump into this thread late, but as one who plays Bergen-style raises frequently (I have partnerships with about 5 different variations of Bergen-style raises), some additional information. In standard Bergen, 3C is the mixed/constructive raise and 3D is the limit raise. In Reverse Bergen, the raises are reversed with the logic being that over hearts, you are more likely to need a counter-game try over the limit raise rather than over the mixed raise. One agreement that is fairly common around the US with Bergen-style raises is that a limit Bergen raise followed by game usually shows a mini-splinter with less than game values (in HCP) and a single/void. The bid is a "game- forcing limit raise" which allows people to have more solid values for a direct splinter. Typical agreements are in the range of 9-12 for the Bergen followed by raise to game and 13-15 for the standard splinter, but the exact agreements vary slightly from partnership to partnership. If responder (North) holds such a hand, it is a fairly clear- cut bid and one that is relatively standard for Bergen partnerships. If the responder does not hold this hand, then the director would need to consider whether the hand used UI to make the 4S call. This is one instance where the responder's hand is relevent to the discussion of the result. -Ted. > From: "Takis Pournaras" > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 12:57:45 +0200 > > The bidding goes: > > S W N E > 1S (pass) 3D* (pass) > 3S (pass) ??? > > 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, = > stated stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. > > "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but i'm not = > sure about his values. Could be weak or limit" > > North now bids 4 spades. Ops call the TD. > > Final result: 4S+1 (South has minimum opening bid values) > > Should the TD let the score stand? > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 04:23:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KHMXa03795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 04:22:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2KHMPH03779 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 04:22:25 +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 g2KHBnM27065; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:11:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:06:40 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... To: karel@esatclear.ie, Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3c98ad66.3d60.0@esatclear.ie> Message-ID: <20020320121157-r01010800-794af0ed-0904-0108@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 3/20/02 at 3:40 PM, karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) wrote: > S: None > H: KJxxxxx > D: xx > C: AKx > > You Play 15-17 NT and 4 card suits > > Dealer West- Game All - Congress Teams > > N | E | S | W | > --------------------------------- > 1S | > P | 2H | P | 4H | > P | 4NT | P | 6H | > P | ? | | | > > > *4NT is Keycard > **6H shows 2 Keycards, the queen and a working void. West took about 20 secs > to bid 6H and finally bid 6H with "achh I dunno". > > East bid 7H on the basis that if they were missing the DA, 6 wouldn't make so > they may as well bid 7. > > N/S called the TD and he rolled the contract back to 6H+1. E/W appealed and > lost the case and their deposit - any comments ?? I hope the TD didn't actually "roll the contract back", but instead adjusted the score after the hand was played. :-) In order for an adjustment to be justified in "out of tempo" cases, several things have to be true: 1. A call was out of tempo, providing UI. Check. (In this case there's the additional UI afforded by West's inappropriate comment, but I don't think it matters here). 2. The UI demonstrably suggests some action over some other logical alternative. Is that the case here? (see below). 3. The recipient of the UI took such a suggested action. 4. Opponents were damaged. A lot of TDs (and players) seem to start with #4, but that's the wrong place, IMO. In this case, the LAs are pass and 7H. The actual bid made by West says he has two keycards, the HQ, and a "working void". Since West opening 1S, he must be void in a minor. The missing keycards (that *is* East's hand you posted, is it not? :) are the aces of spades and hearts, and the ace of diamonds. Seven makes when West is either void in diamonds, or has the ace. If he has the ace of diamonds and is void in clubs, then he either has the HA or the SA. If the latter, again, 7 will fail. If the former, 7 may or may not make. It seems to me bidding 7H is predicated entirely on the bidding, and is not "demonstrably suggested" by the UI, so item 2 above is not true, and so no adjustment should be made. But perhaps I've missed something. Did the committee give a reason why they kept the deposit? If that's *West's* hand up there, things get more interesting, as he's psyched his 1S opening, and East couldn't possibly be expected to realize West has a spade void, absent the UI. 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 Mar 21 04:56:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KHtvL07277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 04:55:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from relay1.softcomca.com ([168.144.1.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2KHtmH07258 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 04:55:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from m2w045 ([168.144.108.45]) by relay1.softcomca.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:45:28 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 199.243.83.202 X-URL: http://www.mail2web.com/ Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... From: "vlnokmgn@videotron.ca" Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:51:13 -0500 To: "ereppert@rochester.rr.com" , "karel@esatclear.ie" , "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: 20 Mar 2002 17:45:28.0746 (UTC) FILETIME=[061D80A0:01C1D037] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-Printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2KHtoH07261 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If all I've read is accurate, I just cannot see how the "aach" comment could have suggested to East to bid on. If anything, I'd be inclined to take this type of comment as indicating an overbid rather than the opposite. And let's not forget that East went to 7 when he could actually have been missing the ace of trump! Touché away! Original Message: ----------------- From: Ed Reppert ereppert@rochester.rr.com Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 12:06:40 -0500 To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... On 3/20/02 at 3:40 PM, karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) wrote: > S: None > H: KJxxxxx > D: xx > C: AKx > > You Play 15-17 NT and 4 card suits > > Dealer West- Game All - Congress Teams > > N | E | S | W | > --------------------------------- > 1S | > P | 2H | P | 4H | > P | 4NT | P | 6H | > P | ? | | | > > > *4NT is Keycard > **6H shows 2 Keycards, the queen and a working void. West took about 20 secs > to bid 6H and finally bid 6H with "achh I dunno". > > East bid 7H on the basis that if they were missing the DA, 6 wouldn't make so > they may as well bid 7. > > N/S called the TD and he rolled the contract back to 6H+1. E/W appealed and > lost the case and their deposit - any comments ?? I hope the TD didn't actually "roll the contract back", but instead adjusted the score after the hand was played. :-) In order for an adjustment to be justified in "out of tempo" cases, several things have to be true: 1. A call was out of tempo, providing UI. Check. (In this case there's the additional UI afforded by West's inappropriate comment, but I don't think it matters here). 2. The UI demonstrably suggests some action over some other logical alternative. Is that the case here? (see below). 3. The recipient of the UI took such a suggested action. 4. Opponents were damaged. A lot of TDs (and players) seem to start with #4, but that's the wrong place, IMO. In this case, the LAs are pass and 7H. The actual bid made by West says he has two keycards, the HQ, and a "working void". Since West opening 1S, he must be void in a minor. The missing keycards (that *is* East's hand you posted, is it not? :) are the aces of spades and hearts, and the ace of diamonds. Seven makes when West is either void in diamonds, or has the ace. If he has the ace of diamonds and is void in clubs, then he either has the HA or the SA. If the latter, again, 7 will fail. If the former, 7 may or may not make. It seems to me bidding 7H is predicated entirely on the bidding, and is not "demonstrably suggested" by the UI, so item 2 above is not true, and so no adjustment should be made. But perhaps I've missed something. Did the committee give a reason why they kept the deposit? If that's *West's* hand up there, things get more interesting, as he's psyched his 1S opening, and East couldn't possibly be expected to realize West has a spade void, absent the UI. 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mar 21 05:14:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KIEhm09263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 05:14:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2KIEYH09246 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 05:14:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA01652; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:04:14 -0800 Message-Id: <200203201804.KAA01652@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:40:22 GMT." <3c98ad66.3d60.0@esatclear.ie> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:04:11 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Karel wrote: > S: None > H: KJxxxxx > D: xx > C: AKx > > You Play 15-17 NT and 4 card suits > > Dealer West- Game All - Congress Teams > > N | E | S | W | > --------------------------------- > 1S | > P | 2H | P | 4H | > P | 4NT | P | 6H | > P | ? | | | > > > *4NT is Keycard > **6H shows 2 Keycards, the queen and a working void. West took about 20 secs > to bid 6H and finally bid 6H with "achh I dunno". > > East bid 7H on the basis that if they were missing the DA, 6 wouldn't make so > they may as well bid 7. > > N/S called the TD and he rolled the contract back to 6H+1. E/W appealed and > lost the case and their deposit - any comments ?? East gets a PP for the L7B1 violation. I also don't understand East's thinking. Why can't partner have Axxxx AQxx KQxx void? Or even Axxxx AQxx Kxxx void with the ace onside? Why does the lack of the DA doom a small slam? I agree with Ed---I can't figure out what the UI suggests. I'm guessing that West doesn't know whether his minor-suit void is "working" or not (how could he, with nobody having said anything about the minor suits?), but that information is not useful to East. I'd rule that L16 was not violated, hence no adjustment. I'd *like* to adjust East's score just because of his failure to count his cards, his incomprehensible logic, and most of all his use of Blackwood with a void AND a small doubleton in an unbid suit when a perfectly good 5C cue-bid is available. But the Laws don't let me do that. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 05:25:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KIPUm10431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 05:25:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2KIPLH10412 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 05:25:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2KIEtL18392; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:14:55 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:14:55 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2KIEs604153; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:14:54 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:14:54 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 SAA06375; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:14:54 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id SAA24306; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:14:53 GMT Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:14:53 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200203201814.SAA24306@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Wed Mar 20 18:10:31 2002 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > To: "Bridge Laws" > CC: adam@irvine.com > Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... > Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:04:11 -0800 > From: Adam Beneschan > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Content-Length: 1922 > > > Karel wrote: > > > S: None > > H: KJxxxxx > > D: xx > > C: AKx > > > > You Play 15-17 NT and 4 card suits > > > > Dealer West- Game All - Congress Teams > > > > N | E | S | W | > > --------------------------------- > > 1S | > > P | 2H | P | 4H | > > P | 4NT | P | 6H | > > P | ? | | | > > > > > > *4NT is Keycard > > **6H shows 2 Keycards, the queen and a working void. West took about 20 secs > > to bid 6H and finally bid 6H with "achh I dunno". > > I agree with Ed---I can't figure out what the UI suggests. I'm > guessing that West doesn't know whether his minor-suit void is > "working" or not (how could he, with nobody having said anything about > the minor suits?), but that information is not useful to East. I'd > rule that L16 was not violated, hence no adjustment. I'd *like* to > adjust East's score just because of his failure to count his cards, > his incomprehensible logic, and most of all his use of Blackwood with > a void AND a small doubleton in an unbid suit when a perfectly good 5C > cue-bid is available. But the Laws don't let me do that. > > -- Adam If you want to fine EW, you could "do" West for his gratuitous comment, under L74B2. 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 Mar 21 09:26:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KMOWX05855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:24:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2KMOOH05837 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:24:25 +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 JAA15542 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:26:28 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:12:03 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:07:17 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 21/03/2002 09:12:15 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 "Is Bergen a ... bargain?", Ed Reppert wrote: [snip] >Perhaps I'm too pedantic about it, but constructs like >"allow the 4S bid" and "roll back the contract" bug me. The >bid was made, and the contract is what it is. What we're >considering is *adjusting the score* because of a violation >of Laws 73C and 16A. I suppose the argument is that we all >know what we mean (at least here on blml), so it's not a >problem, but it still bugs me. :-) The Jeff Rubens school of thought argues that a contract reached after UI should be automatically rolled back, even if the UI-contract fails so the NOS are not damaged. A principal argument that Rubens uses to bolster his proposal is equity. If the field is reaching 3S for +140, but the OS pair uses UI to reach 4S for -50, then Rubens claims that the NOS pair has gained an undeserved top. The implementation of the Rubens proposal would require the WBF to amend Law 16A. Does the blml list consider Rubens' "equity" argument sufficient to justify such a change? 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 Mar 21 09:49:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KMn3i08423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:49:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2KMmtH08407 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 09:48:55 +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 g2KMdU508064 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:39:30 -0900 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 13:37:04 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] 14 and 12 times 3 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I had a rather embarrassing experience at last night's club game. We had 3 1/2 tables. In Round 5 I am called to a table, and ask how I can help: "South has 14 cards, West only 12." East has already opened 1D and South overcalled 1S, after which West notices she is a card short. Okay, fair enough, we read Law 13 (the part before "A"): I have to decide if the deal can be corrected and played normally or not. So I go looking for which card is out of place, so I can decide if it has affected anything. The board has been played twice before, once in Round 1 and again in Round 4. In round 4, it was at my table. I held the South hand. And I realized to my horror that I recognized ALL 14 CARDS. We had played the entire deal out, with a claim at about trick 9, and I never noticed anything wrong, nor did West who was declarer. The people who played the board the first round can't remember a thing. L13C is clear that the score at my table shall be cancelled. And the board is unfixable, so the last table has to receiv e an ArtAS. And the people who played at the first time obtained a score but there is nothing to compare it with. Maybe they played it too and didn't notice; maybe they fouled it at the end of play; maybe it got accidentally disturbed during the hour it was on the assembly table. Anyway -- I have to award ALL SIX PAIRS an artificial adjusted score on the same board! My question is - what scores? --- Giving both pairs at my own table A- for being idiots and not noticing seems easy. Giving EW at the last table A+, for being the only one to catch the mistake, seems easy. I gave NS at the last table A+ too, because I was certain it was not them who fouled the board. But I could easily hold them at fault for failing to count cards before bidding 1S. And at the first table, noone has ANY idea what happened. I gave A/A n the basis that "something went wrong, we don't know exactly what or by whom or when, before this board arrived at the 2nd table" translates into "partially at fault." I am especially uncomfortable with this portion of the ruling. Suggestions welcome. 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 Mar 21 10:27:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KNRAV12682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:27:10 +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 g2KNR1H12665 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:27:01 +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 g2KNGXu17559; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:16:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:14:57 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020320181634-r01010800-272b2f74-0904-0108@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 3/21/02 at 9:07 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > The Jeff Rubens school of thought argues that a contract > reached after UI should be automatically rolled back, even > if the UI-contract fails so the NOS are not damaged. Contracts are reached in the bidding. If the Laws are amended to require a contract to be rolled back, just how do we do that? Suppose the actual auction is: 1S-P-...3S (invitational)-P-4S-P-P-P. Do we roll the auction back to 3S, and require all three players to pass? Do we allow bidding to continue? In the current methods, the hand will already have been played out. If we don't roll back until after the play, then if we allow bidding to continue from the rolled back point, there's all kinds of UI (original defenders may well pass again, but they may also have found during the play that they have a good sacrifice). If we impose an auction after the roll back point, what is our justification (far as I'm concerned it's insufficient to say "because the law will require it" - we're talking about changing the law, so I think the change itself - requirement of the law - needs justification. Especially if we roll back before the play). > A principal argument that Rubens uses to bolster his > proposal is equity. If the field is reaching 3S for +140, > but the OS pair uses UI to reach 4S for -50, then Rubens > claims that the NOS pair has gained an undeserved top. They gained it by the illegal action of their opponents. I don't see a problem with that. > The implementation of the Rubens proposal would require the > WBF to amend Law 16A. Does the blml list consider Rubens' > "equity" argument sufficient to justify such a change? I don't know about the list, but I don't. 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 Mar 21 10:43:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2KNhRr14438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:43:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2KNhJH14422 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:43:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from Arbhuston@aol.com by imo-r05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 7.8.2334b825 (3699) for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:32:39 -0500 (EST) From: Arbhuston@aol.com Message-ID: <8.2334b825.29ca7617@aol.com> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:32:39 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Why is it undeserved? The OS used their judgment, enhanced by UI, to arrive at 4S. So long as that is unsuccessful the NOS should receive the bridge reciprocal. Consider also that the UI standards are such that even if the OS used UI and arrived at the same contract as, say, 80% of the field, reverting the contract to some other logical alternative (3S in example) would punish the NOS. I think that the rules of bridge and the concept of equity would have to undergo a considerable revision for this idea to be sensible. Michael Huston -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 11:05:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2L04nn16788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:04:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2L04fH16772 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:04:41 +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 PAA05250; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:54:25 -0800 Message-Id: <200203202354.PAA05250@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:14:57 EST." <20020320181634-r01010800-272b2f74-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:54:25 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > On 3/21/02 at 9:07 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > The Jeff Rubens school of thought argues that a contract > > reached after UI should be automatically rolled back, even > > if the UI-contract fails so the NOS are not damaged. > > Contracts are reached in the bidding. If the Laws are amended to > require a contract to be rolled back, just how do we do that? > Suppose the actual auction is: 1S-P-...3S > (invitational)-P-4S-P-P-P. Do we roll the auction back to 3S, and > require all three players to pass? Do we allow bidding to continue? Rubens' view is that once an infraction is determined to have occurred, all bidding and play after that point is cancelled, and the TD determines what contract would have been reached (if the infraction occurred during the auction) and what the result of play would have been, probably using the "likely/at all probable" standards of L12C2 or something similar. It's not really "rolling back" anything. To expand on the pedantry: I think we've got a simple terminology problem here. When there's misinformation, the Laws sometimes allow the auction to be rolled back to a previous call to allow a misinformed NO to change his call. However, when a score adjustment is required for an infraction that occurs during the auction, the score is often based what contract SHOULD have been reached if the infraction hadn't occurred. So we probably ought to talk about "changing the contract" instead of "rolling it back". Of course, we're technically not changing the contract; but since the score we assign is based on some contract that we think should have been the final contract, for all practical purposes we *are* changing the contract. I think the "rolling back" term is being used because in UI cases, the infraction is often someone bidding when they should have passed, and this means that if the infraction hadn't occurred, one of the prior bids in the auction would become the final contract. This makes it look like "rolling back". But of course it doesn't work in all adjustment cases: "North opened 3C, and despite the skip bid warning, East passed very quickly. South passed. West had a hand suitable for a minimum reopening double, but passed anyway. The TD ruled that West's pass was based on the UI that East had a quick pass; therefore, he rolled back the contract to 4S, down 2." That's pretty silly, no? So I'd suggest that perhaps we should reserve the term "roll back" for cases where the last call(s) are cancelled and the auction reverts to someone else; while when a score adjustment takes place after UI or MI, we simply say we "changed the contract". Maybe that will make Ed happy, but probably not. :) > > A principal argument that Rubens uses to bolster his > > proposal is equity. If the field is reaching 3S for +140, > > but the OS pair uses UI to reach 4S for -50, then Rubens > > claims that the NOS pair has gained an undeserved top. > > They gained it by the illegal action of their opponents. I don't see > a problem with that. Nobody does except for Rubens, as far as I know. I still don't see why it hurts the field when NO's gain from an infraction, but somehow it doesn't hurt the field when NO's gain from stupidity such as last Saturday my partner treating a singleton in my suit as a king when responding to a Blackwood follow-up, causing me to bid 7NT thinking my suit was running. My opponents definitely got an undeserved top on that hand, but I don't see anyone complaining that the Laws ought to be changed to protect the field from my partner's mistakes. -- 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 Mar 21 11:47:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2L0l5L21552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:47:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2L0kuH21536 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:46:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from dialup-029.sligo.iol.ie ([194.125.48.221] helo=oemcomputer) by mail1.mail.iol.ie with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16nqZO-0001VZ-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:36:43 +0000 Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:35:09 -0000 Message-ID: <01C1D070.417E5F00.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Another pausey case ... Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 00:35:08 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I assume that the hand given is the East hand and also that the missing 13th card is ? O.K. East has UI from the hesitation and the gratuitous comment. But does the UI suggest 7H over Pass? I don't think so. But whether we adjust or not, it seems harsh to deem the appeal frivilous. However there are always two sides to these stories. Best regarsds, Fearghal. -----Original Message----- From: Karel [SMTP:karel@esatclear.ie] Sent: 20 March 2002 15:40 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Another pausey case ... S: None H: KJxxxxx D: xx C: AKx You Play 15-17 NT and 4 card suits Dealer West- Game All - Congress Teams N | E | S | W | --------------------------------- 1S | P | 2H | P | 4H | P | 4NT | P | 6H | P | ? | | | *4NT is Keycard **6H shows 2 Keycards, the queen and a working void. West took about 20 secs to bid 6H and finally bid 6H with "achh I dunno". East bid 7H on the basis that if they were missing the DA, 6 wouldn't make so they may as well bid 7. N/S called the TD and he rolled the contract back to 6H+1. E/W appealed and lost the case and their deposit - any comments ?? seems to me that if you are missing -- 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 14:13:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2L3CKl07394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:12:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2L3CBH07378 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:12:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g2L31ks20028; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:01:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004601c1d084$b80b66e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <200203202354.PAA05250@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 18:58:29 -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 Adam Beneschan wroe: > > Ed wrote: > > > On 3/21/02 at 9:07 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Rubens' view is that once an infraction is determined to have > occurred, all bidding and play after that point is cancelled, and the > TD determines what contract would have been reached (if the infraction > occurred during the auction) and what the result of play would have > been, probably using the "likely/at all probable" standards of L12C2 > or something similar. It's not really "rolling back" anything. Rubens wants L12C3 applied, to make sure (in my words) that the NOS get no more than their perceived equity in the deal. > > > > > A principal argument that Rubens uses to bolster his > > > proposal is equity. If the field is reaching 3S for +140, > > > but the OS pair uses UI to reach 4S for -50, then Rubens > > > claims that the NOS pair has gained an undeserved top. > > > > They gained it by the illegal action of their opponents. I don't see > > a problem with that. > > Nobody does except for Rubens, as far as I know. This pernicious philosophy, contrary to the spirit of bridge, is far more widespread than you seem to think. Some ACBLers are pushing for L12C3 in order to have legal (?) justification for this sort of ruling. A prominent member of the ACBLLC suggested to me that applying L12C3 for the NOS only might be an acceptable way to go, using L12C2 for the OS. Whether an opponent goofs by making a bad bid or play, or by commiting an infraction, it's all the same. Opponents have a right to whatever profits the goofs give them. It's part of the charm of the game, enabling weaker pairs to get an occasional "unearned" break. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 17:37:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2L6ZHg29052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:35:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2L6Z9H29041 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:35:09 +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 RAA09104 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:37:11 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:24:42 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] 14 and 12 times 3 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:19:59 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 21/03/2002 01:24:55 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: [snip] >The board has been played twice before, once in >Round 1 and again in Round 4. In round 4, it was >at my table. I held the South hand. And I realized >to my horror that I recognized ALL 14 CARDS. We >had played the entire deal out, with a claim at >about trick 9, and I never noticed anything wrong, >nor did West who was declarer. The people who >played the board the first round can't remember a >thing. [snip] Former CTD of Australia, Richard Grenside, has stated that in his extensive experience a 14-12 board is often un-noticed over multiple rounds. Therefore, as TD, my determination of the facts under the balance of probabilities is that the board was 14-12 in the first round also. As a result, as TD I would apply Law 13A3 (and consequently Law 6D3) to reshuffle the board. Under Law 82B2, as TD I would arrange late plays of the reshuffled board for the Round 1 and Round 4 contestants. 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 Mar 21 18:45:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2L7iYu06235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:44:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2L7iNH06217 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:44:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0361.bb.online.no [80.212.209.105]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA23258; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:33:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000f01c1d0aa$b61790e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Gordon Bower" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] 14 and 12 times 3 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:33:35 +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 Let us go backwards: Last table: They have to take ArtAS - are somebody at fault? Yes: South did not count the cards before calling. A - But: West???? We cannot tell from the description. A + Your own table: Same story, but here we know that both sides must have been at fault, failing to count their cards: A - to both pairs. First table: We cannot tell, and in particular cannot even know for sure that the cards left the table mixed up (although that is most probable). But most probable isn't enough (had the board for instance been at the sit-out table between the first table and yours?) so the first table shall have A + to both pairs. Your SO may have different regulations, but this is how we would rule in Norway. regards Sven From: "Gordon Bower" > We had 3 1/2 tables. In Round 5 I am called to a table, and ask how I can > help: "South has 14 cards, West only 12." East has already opened 1D and > South overcalled 1S, after which West notices she is a card short. > > Okay, fair enough, we read Law 13 (the part before "A"): I have to decide > if the deal can be corrected and played normally or not. So I go looking > for which card is out of place, so I can decide if it has affected > anything. > > The board has been played twice before, once in Round 1 and again in Round > 4. In round 4, it was at my table. I held the South hand. And I realized > to my horror that I recognized ALL 14 CARDS. We had played the entire deal > out, with a claim at about trick 9, and I never noticed anything wrong, > nor did West who was declarer. The people who played the board the first > round can't remember a thing. > > L13C is clear that the score at my table shall be cancelled. And the board > is unfixable, so the last table has to receiv e an ArtAS. And the people > who played at the first time obtained a score but there is nothing to > compare it with. Maybe they played it too and didn't notice; maybe they > fouled it at the end of play; maybe it got accidentally disturbed during > the hour it was on the assembly table. > > Anyway -- I have to award ALL SIX PAIRS an artificial adjusted score on > the same board! My question is - what scores? > > > --- > > Giving both pairs at my own table A- for being idiots and not noticing > seems easy. Giving EW at the last table A+, for being the only one to > catch the mistake, seems easy. > > I gave NS at the last table A+ too, because I was certain it was not them > who fouled the board. But I could easily hold them at fault for failing to > count cards before bidding 1S. > > And at the first table, noone has ANY idea what happened. I gave A/A n the > basis that "something went wrong, we don't know exactly what or by whom or > when, before this board arrived at the 2nd table" translates into > "partially at fault." I am especially uncomfortable with this portion of > the ruling. Suggestions welcome. > > GRB > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 19:07:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2L86kI08281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:06:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2L86aH08261 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:06:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0666.bb.online.no [80.212.210.154]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA03571 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:56:06 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001f01c1d0ad$daed7800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <200203202354.PAA05250@mailhub.irvine.com> <004601c1d084$b80b66e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:56:01 +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 Once upon a time Directors "rolled back contracts" for iinstance because of UI during the auction, and ordered that a different contract than the one actually reached in the auction should be played. Eventually it was realized that such actions by the Director destroyed the game completely by giving away too much information on the hands to the four players so that the subsequent play was often nothing but a joke. The director who looks at the cards and tells the players: "In my opinion South has every reason to bid 6H" has really given South away. Today the consensus as I know it (world wide) is that the Director must never ever look at any hand during the auction (for the purpose of assessing whether a call is acceptable or not), and he shall never change the contract reached ordering the board to be played in a different contract. If there is a claim that a contract has been reached with assistance of UI or other illegal means he shall after the play has been completed assess whether an adjusted score is in order. "Rolling back an auction" is applicable when during the auction misinformation is revealed. In such cases the last player on the side having received MI shall be allowed to retract his last call and replace it with another call (in which case also a possible subsequent call by OS is cancelled), hence the term "rolling back the auction". But rolling back a contract is today never an option. 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 Mar 21 19:22:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2L8Lt009707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:21:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2L8LkH09691 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:21:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.48]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTB0033MDEOQH@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:11:14 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:09:58 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: Adam Beneschan Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <005101c1d0af$cc0ad240$304f003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203202354.PAA05250@mailhub.irvine.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hear ,Hear !! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract > > Ed wrote: > > > On 3/21/02 at 9:07 AM, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > The Jeff Rubens school of thought argues that a contract > > > reached after UI should be automatically rolled back, even > > > if the UI-contract fails so the NOS are not damaged. > > > > Contracts are reached in the bidding. If the Laws are amended to > > require a contract to be rolled back, just how do we do that? > > Suppose the actual auction is: 1S-P-...3S > > (invitational)-P-4S-P-P-P. Do we roll the auction back to 3S, and > > require all three players to pass? Do we allow bidding to continue? > > Rubens' view is that once an infraction is determined to have > occurred, all bidding and play after that point is cancelled, and the > TD determines what contract would have been reached (if the infraction > occurred during the auction) and what the result of play would have > been, probably using the "likely/at all probable" standards of L12C2 > or something similar. It's not really "rolling back" anything. > > To expand on the pedantry: I think we've got a simple terminology > problem here. When there's misinformation, the Laws sometimes allow > the auction to be rolled back to a previous call to allow a > misinformed NO to change his call. However, when a score adjustment > is required for an infraction that occurs during the auction, the > score is often based what contract SHOULD have been reached if the > infraction hadn't occurred. So we probably ought to talk about > "changing the contract" instead of "rolling it back". Of course, > we're technically not changing the contract; but since the score we > assign is based on some contract that we think should have been the > final contract, for all practical purposes we *are* changing the > contract. > > I think the "rolling back" term is being used because in UI cases, the > infraction is often someone bidding when they should have passed, and > this means that if the infraction hadn't occurred, one of the prior > bids in the auction would become the final contract. This makes it > look like "rolling back". But of course it doesn't work in all > adjustment cases: > > "North opened 3C, and despite the skip bid warning, East passed very > quickly. South passed. West had a hand suitable for a minimum > reopening double, but passed anyway. The TD ruled that West's pass > was based on the UI that East had a quick pass; therefore, he rolled > back the contract to 4S, down 2." > > That's pretty silly, no? So I'd suggest that perhaps we should > reserve the term "roll back" for cases where the last call(s) are > cancelled and the auction reverts to someone else; while when a score > adjustment takes place after UI or MI, we simply say we "changed the > contract". Maybe that will make Ed happy, but probably not. :) > > > > > A principal argument that Rubens uses to bolster his > > > proposal is equity. If the field is reaching 3S for +140, > > > but the OS pair uses UI to reach 4S for -50, then Rubens > > > claims that the NOS pair has gained an undeserved top. > > > > They gained it by the illegal action of their opponents. I don't see > > a problem with that. > > Nobody does except for Rubens, as far as I know. I still don't see > why it hurts the field when NO's gain from an infraction, but somehow > it doesn't hurt the field when NO's gain from stupidity such as last > Saturday my partner treating a singleton in my suit as a king when > responding to a Blackwood follow-up, causing me to bid 7NT thinking my > suit was running. My opponents definitely got an undeserved top on > that hand, but I don't see anyone complaining that the Laws ought to > be changed to protect the field from my partner's mistakes. > > -- Adam > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 19:42:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2L8gCC11860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:42:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2L8g3H11844 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:42:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.7]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTB00L6KECJ0K@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:31:33 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:29:51 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: Arbhuston@aol.com Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <005e01c1d0b2$a22d04e0$304f003e@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: <8.2334b825.29ca7617@aol.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It seems that we are succeding to complicate even reasonably simple situations. When the OS goes down and any time The NOS does not feel damaged the TD is not called back to the table . and the result achieved is scored. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum Tel Aviv ---- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract > Why is it undeserved? The OS used their judgment, enhanced by UI, to arrive > at 4S. So long as that is unsuccessful the NOS should receive the bridge > reciprocal. > > Consider also that the UI standards are such that even if the OS used UI and > arrived at the same contract as, say, 80% of the field, reverting the > contract to some other logical alternative (3S in example) would punish the > NOS. > > I think that the rules of bridge and the concept of equity would have to > undergo a considerable revision for this idea to be sensible. > > Michael Huston > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 21 19:59:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2L8wvW13691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:58:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2L8wmH13672 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 19:58:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.7]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTB003LPF4ETM@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:48:16 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:47:01 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <007301c1d0b4$f8f549c0$304f003e@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Of course no .Many top scores are achieved by mistakes of the opponents.If we call what the OS did a "mistake" we are charitable. Erdrnbaum Israel Tel Aviv ---- From: To: Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract > > In the thread "Is Bergen a ... bargain?", Ed Reppert wrote: > > [snip] > > >Perhaps I'm too pedantic about it, but constructs like > >"allow the 4S bid" and "roll back the contract" bug me. The > >bid was made, and the contract is what it is. What we're > >considering is *adjusting the score* because of a violation > >of Laws 73C and 16A. I suppose the argument is that we all > >know what we mean (at least here on blml), so it's not a > >problem, but it still bugs me. :-) > > The Jeff Rubens school of thought argues that a contract > reached after UI should be automatically rolled back, even > if the UI-contract fails so the NOS are not damaged. > > A principal argument that Rubens uses to bolster his > proposal is equity. If the field is reaching 3S for +140, > but the OS pair uses UI to reach 4S for -50, then Rubens > claims that the NOS pair has gained an undeserved top. > > The implementation of the Rubens proposal would require the > WBF to amend Law 16A. Does the blml list consider Rubens' > "equity" argument sufficient to justify such a change? > > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 21:23:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LAMfc22549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:22:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LAMUH22535 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:22:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from Dator.swipnet.se ([213.101.71.37]) by fep03-svc.swip.net with SMTP id <20020321101159.CLWZ12024.fep03-svc.swip.net@Dator.swipnet.se>; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:11:59 +0100 Message-ID: <003901c1d0be$2ca41900$254765d5@swipnet.se> Reply-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-Olof_Hall=E9n?= To: , "Bridge Laws" References: <3c98ad66.3d60.0@esatclear.ie> Subject: SV: [BLML] Another pausey case ... Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:52:53 +0100 Organization: SBF MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2LAMXH22538 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, You have only 12 cards. How could there possibly be a problem? Hans-Olof Hallén ----- Ursprungligt meddelande ----- Från: "Karel" Till: "Bridge Laws" Skickat: den 20 mars 2002 16:40 Ämne: [BLML] Another pausey case ... > S: None > H: KJxxxxx > D: xx > C: AKx > > You Play 15-17 NT and 4 card suits > > Dealer West- Game All - Congress Teams > > N | E | S | W | > --------------------------------- > 1S | > P | 2H | P | 4H | > P | 4NT | P | 6H | > P | ? | | | > > > *4NT is Keycard > **6H shows 2 Keycards, the queen and a working void. West took about 20 secs > to bid 6H and finally bid 6H with "achh I dunno". > > East bid 7H on the basis that if they were missing the DA, 6 wouldn't make so > they may as well bid 7. > > N/S called the TD and he rolled the contract back to 6H+1. E/W appealed and > lost the case and their deposit - any comments ?? > > > > > seems to me that if you are missing > > > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 22:53:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LBq1S02178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:52:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2LBpjH02147 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:51:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2LBfK515693 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:41:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:41 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract 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: <001f01c1d0ad$daed7800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sven wrote: > Once upon a time Directors "rolled back contracts" for > iinstance because of UI during the auction, and ordered > that a different contract than the one actually reached > in the auction should be played. At rubber/Chicago "directors" still sometimes take this route even today. As long as this option is applied with care it can help produce a more equitable result. 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 Mar 21 22:53:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LBq0U02175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:52:00 +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 g2LBpiH02145 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:51:45 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2LBfJe15666 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:41:19 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:41 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? 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: <200203201615.IAA00735@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > North doesn't have a decision here. South opens 1S, North bids 3 of > something that shows some sort of below-game raise, South bids > 3S---this is a signoff, and North's job is simply to respect that and > pass. (In fact, if North passes, he cannot be deemed to be breaking > any laws regardless of how much UI he has.) I don't pretend to know Bergen but based on what I have read here so far I would expect 3H to show a minimum of a specific type(s) and 3S to show other minima (ie that seems like the most useful way to proceed). I would also put through a "Bergen" 3D any hand in the right point range with good outside intermediates - planning to X opponents or raise to 4 anyway. Other candidates would be hands with empty diamonds - planning to bid 4S if LHO shows undue interest in the explanation. Hands suitable for seeking slam if partner makes the right positive but which will otherwise subside in 4S. I would consider it extremely wasteful to use 3D as an artificial raise and not have some use for 1S-3D-3S-4S. 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 Mar 21 22:53:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LBpxZ02174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:51:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2LBpiH02143 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:51:45 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2LBfIp15649 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:41:18 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:41 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? 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: <200203191659.IAA20988@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > Thus, North broke the rules, and an adjustment is in order. If North > had followed the Laws, he would have passed, for 3S+2, so I adjust to > that. The fact that South actually had a minimum hand is irrelevant. Perhaps. But it seems to me that if the UI "appears" to suggest Y when Y is patently untrue then the UI has quite possibly been misinterpreted. In such situations I advise proceeding with extreme caution. Try the following: 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but I'm not sure about his values. Could be weak or limit" It was likely from the tone/body language that South had a minimum/ sub-minimum and would be bidding 3S regardless of the actual meaning of the 3D bid. Suddenly we are full of praise for the 4S bidder who took active steps to avoid taking advantage of the UI (or at least subconsciously recognised the real message). Not only that but now the UI fits the actual holding. I, for one, would be extremely reluctant to rule against a player who said "I just felt sure that pard was minimum and that I ought to bid 4S". Isn't bidding 4S exactly want we want a player to do when gets a "minimum" vibe from his partner in this auction. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 23:14:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LCEPe04795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:14:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LCEGH04779 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:14:17 +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 NAA13413; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:01:08 +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 NAA16532; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:03:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020321125750.00a5e290@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:08:32 +0100 To: karel@esatclear.ie, "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... In-Reply-To: <3c98ad66.3d60.0@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 15:40 20/03/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >S: None >H: KJxxxxx >D: xx >C: AKx > >You Play 15-17 NT and 4 card suits > >Dealer West- Game All - Congress Teams > > N | E | S | W | >--------------------------------- > 1S | > P | 2H | P | 4H | > P | 4NT | P | 6H | > P | ? | | | > > >*4NT is Keycard >**6H shows 2 Keycards, the queen and a working void. West took about 20 secs >to bid 6H and finally bid 6H with "achh I dunno". > >East bid 7H on the basis that if they were missing the DA, 6 wouldn't make so >they may as well bid 7. > >N/S called the TD and he rolled the contract back to 6H+1. E/W appealed and >lost the case and their deposit - any comments ?? > a) East would better find his 13th cards. Who knows, it might be the DA ? b) West's behavior should be penalized independently of the outcome of the deal. c) East's argument (6H won't fetch) is not valid : West might well have Axxxx-AQxx-Kxxx-void. Or the opening lead could come from QJx in both minors and the player might choose clubs. However, a good question would be, why didn't East Splinter ? d) Was Eadt's decision influenced by UI from East's tempo and remark ? I'm not sure ; East knows West has a minor-suit void. Do the tempo and remark convey more information than that ? I'd like to hear N/S's argument as to this. At first lecture, I don't see why West's void should be in one suit rather than another. e) An interesting argument could be : what's West's doubt ? Perhaps he didn't know whether he'd show his void, because his hand is a bare minimum. In this case, East's reasoning (I might as well bid 7, because partner won't have DK) is prompted by the remark, so it should be disallowed. So the AC should have asked 1) to West : what did your remark mean ? 2) to East : why were you sure partner couldn't have DK ? 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 Mar 21 23:27:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LCQqY06039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:26:52 +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 g2LCQhH06020 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:26:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA15367; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:13:35 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA29780; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:16:16 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020321131219.00a62ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:21:00 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 14 and 12 times 3 In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:37 20/03/2002 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >The board has been played twice before, once in Round 1 and again in Round >4. In round 4, it was at my table. I held the South hand. And I realized >to my horror that I recognized ALL 14 CARDS. We had played the entire deal >out, with a claim at about trick 9, and I never noticed anything wrong, >nor did West who was declarer. The people who played the board the first >round can't remember a thing. > >Giving both pairs at my own table A- for being idiots and not noticing >seems easy. AG : really ? Do you intend to convey the message that the person who had to decide the artificial scores was an idiot ? We're in for a bit of circular logic. >Giving EW at the last table A+, for being the only one to >catch the mistake, seems easy. AG : not my cup of tea. West should have awakened *before* the bidding begun. >I gave NS at the last table A+ too, because I was certain it was not them >who fouled the board. But I could easily hold them at fault for failing to >count cards before bidding 1S. AG : both pairs at the 3rd table did something (ie not counting before picking their cards) that contributed to the unplayability of the board, and should not recieve more than Avg for partial fault. >And at the first table, noone has ANY idea what happened. I gave A/A n the >basis that "something went wrong, we don't know exactly what or by whom or >when, before this board arrived at the 2nd table" translates into >"partially at fault." I am especially uncomfortable with this portion of >the ruling. Suggestions welcome. AG : unless something very special happened at table # 2 (one player let one of his cards in the board, and the other picked it), I'd assume that the board was fouled at table # 1 (in dealing or in replacing the cards ; that's irrelevant). Avg/Avg seems right. Best regards, Alain. >GRB > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 21 23:30:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LCUi306441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:30:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LCUYH06422 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:30:35 +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 NAA15972; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:17:28 +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 NAA03747; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:20:03 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020321132304.00a66ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:24:47 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , richard.hills@immi.gov.au, Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract In-Reply-To: <20020320181634-r01010800-272b2f74-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> 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 18:14 20/03/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > > A principal argument that Rubens uses to bolster his > > proposal is equity. If the field is reaching 3S for +140, > > but the OS pair uses UI to reach 4S for -50, then Rubens > > claims that the NOS pair has gained an undeserved top. > >They gained it by the illegal action of their opponents. I don't see a problem >with that. AG : I agree. You are entitled to good scores provoked by your opponent's failures - be it to find the good bid, to play or defend correctly, to follow suit, to play in rotation or to comply with the "properties" rules. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 00:36:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LDaRi12897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:36:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LDaJH12882 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:36:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16o2Zm-0003ne-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:25:54 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020321081601.00b58b00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:26:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract 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 06:07 PM 3/20/02, richard wrote: >The Jeff Rubens school of thought argues that a contract >reached after UI should be automatically rolled back, even >if the UI-contract fails so the NOS are not damaged. > >A principal argument that Rubens uses to bolster his >proposal is equity. If the field is reaching 3S for +140, >but the OS pair uses UI to reach 4S for -50, then Rubens >claims that the NOS pair has gained an undeserved top. > >The implementation of the Rubens proposal would require the >WBF to amend Law 16A. Does the blml list consider Rubens' >"equity" argument sufficient to justify such a change? No way. That rationale leads to turning bridge from a game into a pencil-and-paper exercise. If, when the field is in 3S for +140, the opponents of a pair that use UI to reach 4S for -50 get an undeserved top, then the opponents of a pair that use perfectly legal bad bidding to reach 4S for -50 get an equally undeserved top. And with the field in 4S for +620, the opponents of a weak declarer who plays badly and goes down get an equally undeserved top. As does the declarer whose opponents defend badly. And so on. Does Mr. Rubens really expect bridge players to accept the notion that they may be liable to an unfavorable score adjustment when their opponents commit an infraction? It sounds like he's putting us on. 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 Mar 22 02:26:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LFPn223120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:25:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2LFPdH23104 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:25:41 +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 g2KFW1o09528 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:32:01 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:05:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? 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: <200203191659.IAA20988@mailhub.irvine.com> >Adam wrote: > >> Thus, North broke the rules, and an adjustment is in order. If North >> had followed the Laws, he would have passed, for 3S+2, so I adjust to >> that. The fact that South actually had a minimum hand is irrelevant. > >Perhaps. But it seems to me that if the UI "appears" to suggest Y when Y >is patently untrue then the UI has quite possibly been misinterpreted. >In such situations I advise proceeding with extreme caution. > >Try the following: > >3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, >stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. > >"All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but I'm not >sure about his values. Could be weak or limit" > >It was likely from the tone/body language that South had a minimum/ >sub-minimum and would be bidding 3S regardless of the actual meaning of >the 3D bid. > >Suddenly we are full of praise for the 4S bidder who took active steps to >avoid taking advantage of the UI (or at least subconsciously recognised >the real message). Not only that but now the UI fits the actual holding. > >I, for one, would be extremely reluctant to rule against a player who said >"I just felt sure that pard was minimum and that I ought to bid 4S". Isn't >bidding 4S exactly want we want a player to do when gets a "minimum" vibe >from his partner in this auction. > This thread defeats me. We're told that an opener rebids 3S after an unidentifiable Bergen raise, showing systemically a minimum. So what? He hasn't used any UI because he doesn't have any. What we're not told is what the Bergen raiser held. If it's 7 losers, he should bid 4S. If it's 8 losers he should pass. If it's close we need to ask more questions. The judgement issue is straightforward, and depends on nothing more than that. 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 Fri Mar 22 02:30:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LFUJR23483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:30:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2LFUAH23468 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 02:30:11 +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 g2KFaWo09532 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:36:32 GMT Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:10:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract 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: <001f01c1d0ad$daed7800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> >Sven wrote: > >> Once upon a time Directors "rolled back contracts" for >> iinstance because of UI during the auction, and ordered >> that a different contract than the one actually reached >> in the auction should be played. > >At rubber/Chicago "directors" still sometimes take this route even today. >As long as this option is applied with care it can help produce a more >equitable result. > But this is allowable in rubber bridge because of the different emphasis on the way the ethics of the Laws of the game are written. A "host" in a rubber bridge game is unlikely to rule "Play it out" if he knows that he's going to adjust the contract anyway. Rubber bridge players also prefer this approach IMO. >Tim > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 03:58:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LGw4S02908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:58:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2LGvuH02889 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:57:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA13597; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:47:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200203211647.IAA13597@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Mar 2002 11:41:00 GMT." Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 08:47:39 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <200203191659.IAA20988@mailhub.irvine.com> > Adam wrote: > > > Thus, North broke the rules, and an adjustment is in order. If North > > had followed the Laws, he would have passed, for 3S+2, so I adjust to > > that. The fact that South actually had a minimum hand is irrelevant. > > Perhaps. But it seems to me that if the UI "appears" to suggest Y when Y > is patently untrue then the UI has quite possibly been misinterpreted. Maybe, but the Laws don't care whether UI has been misinterpreted. If a player draws an incorrect inference from UI and acts on that inference, he's still breaking the Laws. Of course, when an incorrect inference is drawn, the table result is very likely to be worse than if the player had followed the Laws anyway, which means there's no damage and no adjustment unless you're living in Rubensland---but there are exceptions, such as this case, apparently. > In such situations I advise proceeding with extreme caution. > > Try the following: > > 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more information, > stated that he doesn't really remember what's the meaning. > > "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but I'm not > sure about his values. Could be weak or limit" > > It was likely from the tone/body language that South had a minimum/ > sub-minimum and would be bidding 3S regardless of the actual meaning of > the 3D bid. > > Suddenly we are full of praise for the 4S bidder who took active steps to > avoid taking advantage of the UI (or at least subconsciously recognised > the real message). Not only that but now the UI fits the actual holding. > > I, for one, would be extremely reluctant to rule against a player who said > "I just felt sure that pard was minimum and that I ought to bid 4S". Isn't > bidding 4S exactly want we want a player to do when gets a "minimum" vibe > from his partner in this auction. I don't think so. If your system tells you there's only one possible call on a certain auction (such passing after 1S-3D-3S, where 3D systemically cannot include any game-going hands), then I certainly would not argue that you're ethically required to make a non-systemic call, and I hope no one else would. In your example, if the TD can determine that the UI demonstrably suggests that South has a minimum, then we can't rule against North for going on to 4S---and we can't rule against him for passing either. That's not the case in the original posted hand. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 04:09:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LH95v03892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:09:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2LH8uH03876 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 04:08:56 +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 QAA06610 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:58:25 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: "Bridge Laws" Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 16:57:07 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c9a10e3.7166.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.134.198 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 [12 cards hmmm - Lets assume an extra minor card. ] >>S: None >>H: KJxxxxx >>D: xx >>C: AKx >> >>You Play 15-17 NT and 4 card suits >> >>Dealer West- Game All - Congress Teams >> >> N | E | S | W | >>--------------------------------- >> 1S | >> P | 2H | P | 4H | >> P | 4NT | P | 6H | >> P | ? | | | >> >> >>*4NT is Keycard >>**6H shows 2 Keycards, the queen and a working void. West took about 20 secs to bid 6H and finally bid 6H with "achh I dunno". >>East bid 7H on the basis that if they were missing the DA, 6 wouldn't make so they may as well bid 7. >>N/S called the TD and he rolled the contract back to 6H+1. E/W appealed and lost the case and their deposit - any comments ?? [a-c agree] [snip .... ] >d) Was East's decision influenced by UI from East's tempo and remark ? I'm not sure ; East knows West has a minor-suit void. Do the tempo and remark convey more information than that ? I'd like to hear N/S's argument as to this. At first lecture, I don't see why West's void should be in one suit rather than another. While the "Achh dunno" remark cannot possibly show a particular minor void, I would argue that it does show a definite interest in 7 hearts based presumably on extra's either points or distribution. This in itself should be sufficient to stop East bidding 7H's based on 16A ?? [Snip ....] e) An interesting argument could be : what's West's doubt ? Perhaps he didn't know whether he'd show his void, because his hand is a bare minimum. In this case, East's reasoning (I might as well bid 7, because partner won't have DK) is prompted by the remark, so it should be disallowed. [Agree and while it might be argued that the comment and pause doesn't give any UI, in the majority of cases a pause tends to show extras or doubt about bidding more not less. Had West bid a normal 6H in relative tempo, east is now allowed to gamble 7H. After the comment East is surely "happier" bidding 7H based on the unknown in wests hand which west has indicated may be sufficient to bid 7 ?? ] >So the AC should have asked >1) to West : what did your remark mean ? >2) to East : why were you sure partner couldn't have DK ? [ Karel - agree - East's assumption that 6 won't make if west doesn't have the DA so why not bid 7 is wrong ] [So while the pause and comment do not specify any particular minor void the underlying trend for a pause/comment such as the above is to indicate a wish to go further and as such east should IMO pass. I would rule against E/W.] -- 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 Mar 22 05:21:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LILA711908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 05:21:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LIKwH11877 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 05:20:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2LIAWU13302 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:10:32 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:10 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... 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: vlnokmgn@videotron.ca wrote: > If all I've read is accurate, I just cannot see how the "aach" comment > could have suggested to East to bid on. If anything, I'd be inclined > to take this type of comment as indicating an overbid rather than the > opposite. And let's not forget that East went to 7 when he could > actually have been missing the ace of trump! I agree that the pause and comment are more likely to indicate a "stretch" here rather than "extras". However, I suspect the *most* likely cause is that the neither of the aces is in spades - the place that partner will tend to expect one. Obviously once one deduces from the UI that partner has 2 red aces 7H is very much suggested. 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 Mar 22 05:21:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LILAN11905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 05:21:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LIKvH11874 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 05:20:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2LIAVk13279 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:10:31 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:10 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? 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: <200203211647.IAA13597@mailhub.irvine.com> > > Perhaps. But it seems to me that if the UI "appears" to suggest Y > > when Y is patently untrue then the UI has quite possibly been > > misinterpreted. > > Maybe, but the Laws don't care whether UI has been misinterpreted. If > a player draws an incorrect inference from UI and acts on that > inference, he's still breaking the Laws. Of course. But that is not the case I was putting. I am interested in the situation where the player has *correctly* deduced something about his partner's hand and taken a counter-indicated action. Which will also usually lead to a poor result. > Of course, when an incorrect > inference is drawn, the table result is very likely to be worse than > if the player had followed the Laws anyway, which means there's no > damage and no adjustment unless you're living in Rubensland---but > there are exceptions, such as this case, apparently. > > In such situations I advise proceeding with extreme caution. > > > > Try the following: > > > > 3D was alerted as "Bergen raise". When ops asked for more > > information, stated that he doesn't really remember what's the > > meaning. > > > > "All I know is that my partner has a four card spade fit, but I'm not > > sure about his values. Could be weak or limit" > > > > It was likely from the tone/body language that South had a minimum/ > > sub-minimum and would be bidding 3S regardless of the actual meaning > > of the 3D bid. > > > > Suddenly we are full of praise for the 4S bidder who took active > > steps to avoid taking advantage of the UI (or at least subconsciously > > recognised the real message). Not only that but now the UI fits the > > actual holding. > > > > I, for one, would be extremely reluctant to rule against a player who > > said "I just felt sure that pard was minimum and that I ought to bid > > 4S". Isn't bidding 4S exactly want we want a player to do when gets a > > "minimum" vibe from his partner in this auction. > > I don't think so. If your system tells you there's only one possible > call on a certain auction (such passing after 1S-3D-3S, where 3D > systemically cannot include any game-going hands), then I certainly > would not argue that you're ethically required to make a non-systemic > call, and I hope no one else would. OK, but I just can't believe a system would be so wasteful that there are no hands that qualify for 1S-3D, 3S-4S (this is causing me major problems in relating to your scenario!). I mean how do you bid KT9x,AJ9x,QJ9,xx playing Bergen raises? > In your example, if the TD can determine that the UI demonstrably > suggests that South has a minimum, then we can't rule against North > for going on to 4S---and we can't rule against him for passing > either. That's not the case in the original posted hand. Surely if a player, who was there at the time, says that he felt from the UI that his partner was minimum *and was correct* the TD can make such a determination rather easily. 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 Mar 22 06:07:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LJ7fG16626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:07:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2LJ7WH16611 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:07:33 +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 KAA14670; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:57:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200203211857.KAA14670@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:10:00 GMT." Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:57:15 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > OK, but I just can't believe a system would be so wasteful that there are > no hands that qualify for 1S-3D, 3S-4S (this is causing me major problems > in relating to your scenario!). I mean how do you bid KT9x,AJ9x,QJ9,xx > playing Bergen raises? All I can say is that Bergen is one of those writers whose main audience is intermediate players; and among that audience, simplicity and the ability to play a cool new convention are probably more important than theoretical soundness. So while you're right that this is wasteful, you'll just have to suspend your disbelief that anyone would play a wasteful convention like that. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 06:18:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LJHrC17758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:17:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LJHiH17740 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:17:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2LJ7Co27808 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:07:12 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200203211907.g2LJ7Co27808@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:07:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-meads" at Mar 21, 2002 06:10:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My apologies if I have the following attributions wrong, but there were quite a few references... > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 18:10 +0000 (GMT) > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > > In-Reply-To: <200203211647.IAA13597@mailhub.irvine.com> > > OK, but I just can't believe a system would be so wasteful that there are > no hands that qualify for 1S-3D, 3S-4S (this is causing me major problems > in relating to your scenario!). I mean how do you bid KT9x,AJ9x,QJ9,xx > playing Bergen raises? > As I mentioned before, in the Eastern US, it is common to play that the 1S-3D-3S-4S sequence shows a limit raise with shortness leaving the standard splinter bids to show more solid HCP hands. This hand is usually bid as 1S-3D-3S pass. Also, 1S-3D-3H is usually an artificial counter-game try, so if you held the hand above and partner did not bid either 4S or 3H, then you would definitely pass. The only thing that would promote your hand when partner signed off at 3S is a single/void. The problem is a little more difficult with 1H-3D-3H since partner cannot make the counter game try on the borderline hands. This is why more people play Reverse Bergen than Bergen, since the borderline hand is often critical and allows the counter-game try. The counter- game try is less useful over the mixed/constructive raise than over the limit raise. > > In your example, if the TD can determine that the UI demonstrably > > suggests that South has a minimum, then we can't rule against North > > for going on to 4S---and we can't rule against him for passing > > either. That's not the case in the original posted hand. > > Surely if a player, who was there at the time, says that he felt from the > UI that his partner was minimum *and was correct* the TD can make such a > determination rather easily. > And if they are playing Bergen and the opener failed to raise to game *AND* failed to counter-game try then there is much more reason to believe that partner does not have the values for game. So, without the UI, there is much more argument for passing 3S unless the responder has shortness. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 06:18:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LJIVI17847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:18:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LJIMH17828 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:18:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2LJ7pf27918 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:07:51 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200203211907.g2LJ7pf27918@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? [cont] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:07:51 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Takis Pournaras" at Mar 19, 2002 01:01:08 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 Takis, The responder's shape is also pertinent. What was responder's shape? -Ted. > From: "Takis Pournaras" > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:01:08 +0200 > > I forgot to mention that North has a limit hand with a 4crd spade fit... > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 06:26:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LJPrW18609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:25:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LJPiH18590 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 06:25:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2LJFC128295 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:15:12 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200203211915.g2LJFC128295@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 14:15:12 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Adam Beneschan" at Mar 21, 2002 10:57:15 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: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 10:57:15 -0800 > From: Adam Beneschan > > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > OK, but I just can't believe a system would be so wasteful that there are > > no hands that qualify for 1S-3D, 3S-4S (this is causing me major problems > > in relating to your scenario!). I mean how do you bid KT9x,AJ9x,QJ9,xx > > playing Bergen raises? > > All I can say is that Bergen is one of those writers whose main > audience is intermediate players; and among that audience, simplicity > and the ability to play a cool new convention are probably more > important than theoretical soundness. So while you're right that this > is wasteful, you'll just have to suspend your disbelief that anyone > would play a wasteful convention like that. > I think this is misleading. Although Bergen's writing is geared towards intermediate players, this does not affect the soundness of the system or convention. Just because intermediate players only use part of a system, doesn't mean that the rest isn't there or doesn't exist. Some intermediate players will play Blackwood and use 5NT to ask for kings, but don't use 5NT to guarantee all the asked-for controls to allow both sides to bid accordingly. That doesn't mean that the inference doesn't exist when stronger players play it. Likewise, the system and the responses and the inferences exist when stronger players use the Bergen system. There are many expert partnerships that use Bergen with a host of expert inferences and meanings for subsequent bids. One well-known example are Cohen and Berkowitz. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 07:54:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LKrQj00060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 07:53:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2LKrCH00034 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 07:53:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3414.bb.online.no [80.212.221.86]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA12601; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:42:21 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002201c1d118$e68cec20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 21:42:12 +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: "Tim West-meads" > Sven wrote: > > > Once upon a time Directors "rolled back contracts" for > > iinstance because of UI during the auction, and ordered > > that a different contract than the one actually reached > > in the auction should be played. > > At rubber/Chicago "directors" still sometimes take this route even today. > As long as this option is applied with care it can help produce a more > equitable result. No, it cannot. We have been through this discussion here before. Once the director looks at some cards and then makes a decision there is no way he can avoid giving away to all four players essential information on the cards he has inspected, information which should be classified as UI. Net effect: He has destroyed the possibility to obtain a "normal" result on the board. 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 Mar 22 08:21:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2LLKn303175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 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 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 g2LLKeH03154 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 08:20:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-4055.bb.online.no [80.212.223.215]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA04665 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:10:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002c01c1d11c$c83831e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020321131219.00a62ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] 14 and 12 times 3 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:10:03 +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 From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >Giving both pairs at my own table A- for being idiots and not noticing > >seems easy. > > AG : really ? Do you intend to convey the message that the person who had > to decide the artificial scores was an idiot ? We're in for a bit of > circular logic. I think he was commendable in admitting that he had done something foolish. He ruled correct: A- both ways. > > > >Giving EW at the last table A+, for being the only one to > >catch the mistake, seems easy. > > AG : not my cup of tea. West should have awakened *before* the bidding begun. Who says the bidding didn't begin by NS before West had counted his (or was it her?) cards? The important fact is that West did count the cards before making any call and called attention to the irregularity at the earliest possible moment according to how I read the original post. Correct ruling. > > > >I gave NS at the last table A+ too, because I was certain it was not them > >who fouled the board. But I could easily hold them at fault for failing to > >count cards before bidding 1S. > > AG : both pairs at the 3rd table did something (ie not counting before > picking their cards) that contributed to the unplayability of the board, > and should not recieve more than Avg for partial fault. This is where I disagree with the original post: NS at the last table contributed to the unplayability of the board by not counting their cards before making a call (actually before looking at their cards). The correct ruling at the last table should have been A- for NS. Not because they fouled the board (which they die not), but because they failed to count their cards before looking at them and thereby made it impossible to play the board at that table even if it had been possible to restore the hands to correct version. > >And at the first table, noone has ANY idea what happened. I gave A/A n the > >basis that "something went wrong, we don't know exactly what or by whom or > >when, before this board arrived at the 2nd table" translates into > >"partially at fault." I am especially uncomfortable with this portion of > >the ruling. Suggestions welcome. > > AG : unless something very special happened at table # 2 (one player let > one of his cards in the board, and the other picked it), I'd assume that > the board was fouled at table # 1 (in dealing or in replacing the cards ; > that's irrelevant). Avg/Avg seems right. And again the ruling was incorrect. You can assume that the error was made when the cards were replaced to the board at table 1, but it is even more probable that the cards were withdrawn by the sit-over pair who with no sit-over should have played that board. (Wasn't it said that the board in question remained unplayed for an hour between table 1 and table 2?). If you want to rule on probabilities you should penalize the sit-over pair (who never played that board but most likely took their opportunity to look at it) for probably having accidently shifted a card from one pocket to another while looking at the board. But that is not how Directors work. The correct ruling at table #1 should be A+ both ways (because their result could not be compared to any other result obtained on the board). 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 Mar 22 11:34:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M0WfH23206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:32:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2M0WVH23192 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:32:32 +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 AAA23513 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:21:53 GMT From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:20:34 GMT Subject: [BLML] X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3c9a78d2.7f36.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.165.170.217 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 Playing in Oostend mixed pairs at the weekend - unfortunately our 1st session was just unrecoverable - anyway - playing against a guy from bulgaria or that general vicinity and his partner is declarer. He puts down dummy "upside down" (ie) high cards closest to declarer and going back towards him. I've never in all my years playing come across this. When I asked him to place the cards in the "correct" order he refused. I called the TD and once again my knowledge was expanded. It appears Dummy can (I assume with Declarer's agreement) place dummy in any order he wishes. Now this seems quite amazing. Pushing this to the limit you can order your cards in completely random order in dummy and presumably change direction of the suits displayed etc etc. Is this correct ?? 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 Fri Mar 22 12:14:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M1Dcs27566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:13:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2M1DTH27542 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:13:30 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2M132q22086 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 01:03:02 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 01:03 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract 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: <002201c1d118$e68cec20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sven wrote: > > > Once upon a time Directors "rolled back contracts" for > > > iinstance because of UI during the auction, and ordered > > > that a different contract than the one actually reached > > > in the auction should be played. > > > > At rubber/Chicago "directors" still sometimes take this route even > > today. > > As long as this option is applied with care it can help produce a > > more equitable result. > > No, it cannot. > > We have been through this discussion here before. Once the director > looks at some cards and then makes a decision there is no way he > can avoid giving away to all four players essential information on the > cards he has inspected, information which should be classified as UI. I have seen a contract rolled back, quite correctly (ie we would all have adjusted), by a host without even looking at the cards. The host has to be very careful when applying this option as I said earlier but I have seen it done several times when all 4 players at the table feel the result to be fairer than adjusting to a completely different contract after play. I am not recommending that the approach be taken at duplicate. Please note that at rubber bridge the host cannot assign a non-balancing adjustment (without paying for it out of his own pocket). 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 Mar 22 12:42:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M1fdp00590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:41:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2M1fUH00574 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:41:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g2M1V4H00078 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:31:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <002f01c1d141$35b7c540$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3c9a78d2.7f36.0@esatclear.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:30:50 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > Playing in Oostend mixed pairs at the weekend - unfortunately our 1st session > was just unrecoverable - anyway - playing against a guy from bulgaria or that > general vicinity and his partner is declarer. > > He puts down dummy "upside down" (ie) high cards closest to declarer and going > back towards him. I've never in all my years playing come across this. When > I asked him to place the cards in the "correct" order he refused. I called > the TD and once again my knowledge was expanded. It appears Dummy can (I assume > with Declarer's agreement) place dummy in any order he wishes. Now this seems > quite amazing. Pushing this to the limit you can order your cards in completely > random order in dummy and presumably change direction of the suits displayed > etc etc. Is this correct ?? > L41D requires dummy's cards to be spread face-up on the table, in front of dummy, "sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank, in columns pointing lengthwise towards declarer, with trumps to dummy's right." Evidently the ranks may be sorted in ascending or descending order, or a combination of both, colors need not be alternated, and there is nothing to say that the arrangement must be approved by declarer. Rank sorting was not required in the Laws until 1987, and moreover until then there was no requirement for suits to be arranged in columns pointed toward declarer. A mischievous person could have some fun with this one. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 13:08:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M27f103361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:07:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2M27TH03341 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:07:29 +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 NAA23086 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:09:31 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:55:03 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:50:20 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/03/2002 12:55:16 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jeff Rubens subsequently wrote (March 2002 Bridge World): >We were greatly surprised to learn that our revolutionary >suggestion to use cancellation and equity adjustment to >settle informational irregularities (September and >October Editorials) did not generate controversy. Hardly >anyone had a negative word to say, and clarifying >correspondence seemed to settle objections. I suspect that Rubens' late co-Editor would have had unsettled objections, but that is hypothetical. What is more relevant is that it appears that while Bridge World readers were supportive/indifferent, bridge laws specialists on blml are opposing/indifferent. I also dislike the Rubens revolutionary suggestion. But, to further stimulate debate, I will play Devil's Advocate to objections raised so far. 1. Eric wrote: [snip] >Does Mr. Rubens really expect bridge players to accept the >notion that they may be liable to an unfavorable score >adjustment when their opponents commit an infraction? It >sounds like he's putting us on. Rubens wishes to introduce the replacement notion that illegal bids are always illegal, and are therefore deemed not to have happened. Therefore, a subsequent NOS "favourable" score never happened, so from a Platonic view that favourable score does not exist to be unfavourably adjusted. 2. Israel wrote: >It seems that we are succeeding in complicating even >reasonably simple situations. >When the OS goes down and any time the NOS does not feel >damaged the TD is not called back to the table, and the >result achieved is scored. This is actually one of the strongest points in favour of the Rubens revolution. When the OS is damaged, the Rubens rule would require them to call the TD against themselves for score adjustment. The embarassment may cause the OS to infract less often in future. While brazen OS's will more quickly build up a dossier in the Recorder's files. 3. Adam wrote: [snip] >I still don't see why it hurts the field when NO's gain >from an infraction, but somehow it doesn't hurt the >field when NO's gain from stupidity such as last >Saturday my partner treating a singleton in my suit as >a king when responding to a Blackwood follow-up, causing >me to bid 7NT thinking my suit was running. My opponents >definitely got an undeserved top on that hand, but I don't >see anyone complaining that the Laws ought to be changed >to protect the field from my partner's mistakes. It depends where you draw the line on accepting windfalls. Michael Rosenberg, for instance, refuses to take any advantage from an opponent's OLOOT. 4. Michael wrote: [snip] >I think that the rules of bridge and the concept of >equity would have to undergo a considerable revision for >this idea to be sensible. It is too true that the rules of bridge would have to be revised - but the question I started this thread with was *should* the laws be revised? And one thing this list has demonstrated is that there is no such thing as *the* concept of equity. 5. Marv wrote: [snip] >Whether an opponent goofs by making a bad bid or play, >or by commiting an infraction, it's all the same. >Opponents have a right to whatever profits the goofs >give them. It's part of the charm of the game, enabling >weaker pairs to get an occasional "unearned" break. Why should the game have charm? It is much better to introduce the Rubens rule, which will have the effect in practice of increasing infractions. Unethical OS will have goofs rolled back, while keeping those good scores where the NOS fail to call for the TD. Result: More TDs, more ACs, more fun discussing cases on blml, so everybody will be happy (except the NOS). 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 Mar 22 13:31:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M2VNw05670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:31:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2M2VEH05654 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:31:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-151-121-181-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-121-181-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.181]) by ptialaska.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g2M2Kkf04274; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:20:46 -0900 (AKST) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:21:11 -0900 (Alaskan Standard Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List cc: Gordon Bower Subject: [BLML] Re: 14 and 12 times 3 In-Reply-To: <002c01c1d11c$c83831e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: mschmahl@ptialaska.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A recap: Board 14 is played on round 1 -- We don't know what happened, other than that they palyed the board and scored it up. Board 14 is replayed on round 4, with 14 cards in the South hand and 12 cards in the West hand. Board 14 starts to be replayed on round 5, but West notices she only has 12 cards; she has already seen her hand. East and South have already bid. I am convinced, though not beyond a reasonable doubt, that it was dealt and played this way on the first round. I was North when the board was played the second time; I missed my chance to catch the mistake when declarer claimed with a trump-flush; she had one fewer card than I or dummy, and apparently two fewer cards than partner. I can claim this because I have some familiarity with the foibles of our club. One poster mentioned the possibility that a pair sitting out over these boards may have fouled them. I deem this unlikely, although I can't say for certain what the pair in question did during that round. Pairs sitting out usually kibitz a hand they've already played, or go off into another room to attempt to add pieces to the jigsaw puzzle that perpetually sits there. The possibility was also raised that one of dummy's cards was picked up by North in the process of putting the hands back into the board. This is a live possibility, since one of our players has visual difficulties, and to accomodate her, we tend to move the boards aside when she declares and lay out the dummy in the center of the table, a la rubber bridge. But if I'm not mistaken, she was West on round 1. So assuming it was a misdeal on the first round, what do we do now? I assume that the correct solution would be for the board to be redealt at the last table and assign late-plays to the other pairs who were supposed to play it [L13A3]. Would there also be justification for considering it an "unplayed board"? If we can't be certain that the board was misdealt originally, it seems to me that the scores would have to be: A+/A+ for the first round (by regulation -- result cannot be compared to any other result; the case is not covered directly by the Laws as far as I can see), but with a PP [L90A, L90B6-7], which easily equates to A-/A- if you decide the PP should be one-fifth of a top; A-/A- for the fourth round [L12A2, L12C1 -- both sides "directly at fault"], possibly again with a PP; and A/A for the fifth round ["partially at fault" -- the error could possibly, though not necessarily, have been rectified had the mistake been caught]. -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 13:34:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M2Yc606044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:34:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2M2YTH06029 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:34:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-151-121-181-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-121-181-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.181]) by ptialaska.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g2M2O2f07157 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:24:03 -0900 (AKST) Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:24:29 -0900 (Alaskan Standard Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract In-Reply-To: Message-ID: X-X-Sender: mschmahl@ptialaska.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, Tim West-meads wrote: > I am not recommending that the approach be taken at duplicate. Please > note that at rubber bridge the host cannot assign a non-balancing > adjustment (without paying for it out of his own pocket). This could also be a wonderful source of income! "NS -100, EW -420. Please put the $5.20 in the can marked 'Donations for Coffee'." -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 14:25:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M3P6i11404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:25:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2M3OwH11388 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:24:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 2216 invoked by uid 504); 22 Mar 2002 03:14:26 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.87751 secs); 22 Mar 2002 03:14:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.190) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 03:14:25 -0000 Message-ID: <001801c1d14f$3dc189c0$be16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <3c9a78d2.7f36.0@esatclear.ie> <002f01c1d141$35b7c540$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:11:19 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] > L41D requires dummy's cards to be spread face-up on the table, in front of > dummy, "sorted into suits, the cards in order of rank, in columns pointing > lengthwise towards declarer, with trumps to dummy's right." > > Evidently the ranks may be sorted in ascending or descending order, or a > combination of both, colors need not be alternated, and there is nothing to > say that the arrangement must be approved by declarer. You haven't played with my partner. Life as we know it stops until the suits are in rank order left to right. :-) 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 Mar 22 14:34:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M3YWw12474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:34:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2M3YOH12460 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:34:25 +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 OAA08842 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:36:29 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:21:59 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: 14 and 12 times 3 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:17:16 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 22/03/2002 02:22:12 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: [big snip] >So assuming it was a misdeal on the first round, what >do we do now? I assume that the correct solution would >be for the board to be redealt at the last table and >assign late-plays to the other pairs who were supposed >to play it [L13A3]. Would there also be justification >for considering it an "unplayed board"? No such Lawful justification. Laws 13 and 6 require the board to be redealt, so it would then legally exist - unless it is again dealt 14-12. :-) >If we can't be certain that the board was misdealt >originally, it seems to me that the scores would have to >be: A+/A+ for the first round [big snip] Law 85A does not require the TD to be *certain* of the misdeal, merely *satisfied*. Furthermore, Law 85B allows an unsatisfied TD to rule in a way that *will allow play to continue*, which surely includes _re_play of a board. 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 Mar 22 14:38:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M3cl912754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:38:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail6.svr.pol.co.uk (mail6.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2M3cdH12736 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:38:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from modem-250.kentucky.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.68.250] helo=pc) by mail6.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16oFis-000236-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 03:28:11 +0000 Message-ID: <000001c1d151$29d89320$fa44893e@pc> From: "LarryBennett" To: Subject: [BLML] vps Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:35:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C1D0EE.0B105C60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_000A_01C1D0EE.0B105C60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know this isn't quite the subject matter for this forum, but can = anybody furnish me with a VP scale for 6 bd rnds Swiss PAIRS Thanks, Larry ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C1D0EE.0B105C60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I know this isn't quite the = subject=20 matter for this forum, but can anybody furnish me with a VP scale for 6 = bd rnds=20 Swiss PAIRS
 
Thanks, = Larry
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C1D0EE.0B105C60-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 15:25:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M4P2W17760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:25:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2M4OrH17737 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:24:54 +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 4DAF7R3J; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:14:26 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020321231232.02670de0@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:14:17 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? In-Reply-To: <200203211915.g2LJFC128295@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 02:15 PM 3/21/02 -0500, Ted Ying wrote: >That doesn't mean that the inference doesn't exist when stronger >players play it. > >Likewise, the system and the responses and the inferences exist >when stronger players use the Bergen system. There are many >expert partnerships that use Bergen with a host of expert >inferences and meanings for subsequent bids. One well-known >example are Cohen and Berkowitz. > > -Ted. At 02:15 PM 3/21/02 -0500, Ted Ying wrote: >That doesn't mean that the inference doesn't exist when stronger >players play it. > >Likewise, the system and the responses and the inferences exist >when stronger players use the Bergen system. There are many >expert partnerships that use Bergen with a host of expert >inferences and meanings for subsequent bids. One well-known >example are Cohen and Berkowitz. > > -Ted. Ted I'm very interested in anything you can tell me about the Cohen - Berkowitz partnership agreements regarding Bergen raises, and also in anything you can tell me about their system. I know it is based on Precision but other than that virtually nothing. Thanks, Walt Flory -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 19:12:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M8AH410801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:10:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2M8A8H10789 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:10:09 +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 g2M80f514290 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:00:41 -0900 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 22:58:12 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I got myself into a lively online discussion with an Austrian expert about psyching earlier this week. I was surprised to hear him say "in some countries, psyching is not legal in first or second seat." Of course I immediately started spouting about how the laws guarantee our right to psych natural bids, etc, etc, and no SO would dare to make such a regulation. He says, yes, that's really the way it is in Europe. I ask him, can you show me the regulation. I was referred to http://www.bridgeaustria.at/service/rules/wko/index.htm which gives (in German) the regulations of the Austrian Bridge Federation. And here we find the offending item which reads as follows: 10. Bluffgebote 10.5. Achtzehner - Regel In allen Paarturnieren muss eine Ansage von "Eins in Farbe" in erster und zweiter Hand nach der "Achtzehner-Regel" zulaessig sein: Die Summe aus allen Figurenpunkten und der Blattzahl in den beiden laengsten Farben muss mindestens achtzehn betragen. Blanke Figuren duerfen voll gezaehlt werden. In Anfaengerturnieren gilt die 18er-Regel auch in dritter Hand. Erffoenungen mit Dreieredelfarben sind in solchen Turnieren verboten. Die Bestimmung gilt auch fuer "Treff- und A - Linien". This translates as follows (please correct me, native speakers, if I err): Psychic bids The Rule of 18 In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand much follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is true in both club and A-level events. Notice that this rule appears *in the section on psychic bidding*, not in the section on allowable systems. I am assured that this rule exists for the express purpose of forbidding anyone to psych a natural 1-bid, not to regulate systemic 10HCP openings. Section 10.7 specifies the penalty for such a psych shall be automatic AVG+/AVG- "exactly as after the use of an illegal convention." (The other sections define what a psych is, warn against CPUs, and forbid psyching a strong conventional opening.) Say it ain't so, folks. Does the WBF really permit this regulation to stand? 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 Fri Mar 22 19:46:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M8ini14857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:44:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2M8ieH14842 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:44:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2155.bb.online.no [80.212.216.107]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA26916 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:34:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003401c1d17c$55727980$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:34:04 +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: "Gordon Bower" > > I got myself into a lively online discussion with an Austrian expert about > psyching earlier this week. I was surprised to hear him say "in some > countries, psyching is not legal in first or second seat." Of course I > immediately started spouting about how the laws guarantee our right to > psych natural bids, etc, etc, and no SO would dare to make such a > regulation. > > He says, yes, that's really the way it is in Europe. I ask him, can you > show me the regulation. I was referred to ......... > > This translates as follows (please correct me, native speakers, if I err): > > Psychic bids > > The Rule of 18 > > In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand > much follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 > longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may > be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third > seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is > true in both club and A-level events. > > Notice that this rule appears *in the section on psychic bidding*, not in > the section on allowable systems. I am assured that this rule exists for > the express purpose of forbidding anyone to psych a natural 1-bid, not to > regulate systemic 10HCP openings. > > Section 10.7 specifies the penalty for such a psych shall be automatic > AVG+/AVG- "exactly as after the use of an illegal convention." (The other > sections define what a psych is, warn against CPUs, and forbid psyching a > strong conventional opening.) > > Say it ain't so, folks. Does the WBF really permit this regulation to > stand? The relevant Law might be 40D. As the number of cards in the two longest suits must add up to at least 7, the rule of 18 may affect hands with 10 or less HCP. However Law40D permits Zonal organisations to regulate initial actions at the 1-level with hands of a King or more below average strength, that is with 7 or less HCP. So it would appear that the Austrian regulation is in conflict with Law40D as far as hands of strength 8-10 HCP is concerned. EXCEPT that the regulation speaks of psychic calls and Law40D speaks of conventions, agreements or understandings which is something completely different. The final question is: Can a Zonal organisations at all ban psychic actions (complying with Law40A) without being in conflict with the laws? My personal opinion is no, they cannot, but this question has already raised lots of controversy, and many organisations apparently ignore the laws on this point. 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 Mar 22 20:20:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M9INj18657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:18:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from NEW-MEDIA.GR ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2M9IEH18637 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:18:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from pournaras ([192.168.86.21]) by NEW-MEDIA.GR ( IA Mail Server Version: 4.1.4. Build: 1015 ) ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:07:14 +0200 Message-ID: <011901c1d180$f575ed50$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200203211907.g2LJ7pf27918@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? [cont] Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:06:58 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Ying" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? [cont] [Ted Ying] The responder's shape is also pertinent. What was responder's shape? --- Good ol' 4-4-3-2, 11HCP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 20:41:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2M9e3Y21092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:40:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from NEW-MEDIA.GR ([212.205.99.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2M9dsH21075 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:39:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from pournaras ([192.168.86.21]) by NEW-MEDIA.GR ( IA Mail Server Version: 4.1.4. Build: 1015 ) ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:28:48 +0200 Message-ID: <015501c1d183$f8876bb0$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> From: "Takis Pournaras" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:28:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Gordon Bower] I got myself into a lively online discussion with an Austrian expert about psyching earlier this week. I was surprised to hear him say "in some countries, psyching is not legal in first or second seat." Of course I immediately started spouting about how the laws guarantee our right to psych natural bids, etc, etc, and no SO would dare to make such a regulation. --- IMHO the Laws give the right to psych any bid. Neither in L40A or in L75B says anything about psyching conventional bids. Also L40D gives the liverty to sponsoring organizations to regulate the use of bidding or play conventions (or regulate partnership understandings) but not to forbid psyching. And of course according to the definitions, a psychic call is not a convention... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 22 21:47:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MAkXj29710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:46:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MAkNH29694 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:46:24 +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 LAA24438; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:33:14 +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 LAA20154; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:35:54 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322113441.00a66cf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:40:39 +0100 To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] In-Reply-To: <3c9a78d2.7f36.0@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 00:20 22/03/2002 +0000, Karel wrote: >Playing in Oostend mixed pairs at the weekend - unfortunately our 1st session >was just unrecoverable - anyway - playing against a guy from bulgaria or that >general vicinity and his partner is declarer. > >He puts down dummy "upside down" (ie) high cards closest to declarer and going >back towards him. I've never in all my years playing come across this. When >I asked him to place the cards in the "correct" order he refused. I called >the TD and once again my knowledge was expanded. It appears Dummy can (I >assume >with Declarer's agreement) place dummy in any order he wishes. Now this seems >quite amazing. Pushing this to the limit you can order your cards in >completely >random order in dummy and presumably change direction of the suits displayed >etc etc. Is this correct ?? AG : L41B tells us that the suits must be in one column each and in ranking order. Nowhere is it said that the order should be from top to bottom. If your opponent wants to table them the other way, that's his right. Presumably this is the custom in Bulgaria, or whatever. After all, they say "yes" by moving the head in a frontal plane, and "no" by moving it in a sagittal plane, quite the contrary of what we do (sagittal and horizontal respectively). Some players do this in Belgium ; however, they are a minority, and as a TD I'd ask them to corect it, on the basis of fair play (or, if you prefer, L74A), but only because nearly everyone would feel this strange. If ths custom is "upwards" in his country, perhaps doing otherwise would cause problems to declarer, and after all he must care for his partner first. 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 Mar 22 21:47:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MAlNI29805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:47:23 +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 g2MAlBH29780 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:47:12 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2MAail26363 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:36:44 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:36 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? 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: <200203211857.KAA14670@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam wrote: > All I can say is that Bergen is one of those writers whose main > audience is intermediate players; and among that audience, simplicity > and the ability to play a cool new convention are probably more > important than theoretical soundness. So while you're right that this > is wasteful, you'll just have to suspend your disbelief that anyone > would play a wasteful convention like that. OK, thanks. I will try to do so. I was naive to think players might adopt conventions on merit - I really should know better by now. 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 Mar 22 21:50:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MAoWE00149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:50:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MAoNH00128 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:50:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2MAdt728710 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:39:56 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 10:39 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? 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: <200203211907.g2LJ7Co27808@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Ted Ying wrote: > I mean how do you bid KT9x,AJ9x,QJ9,xx playing Bergen raises? > > As I mentioned before, in the Eastern US, it is common to play > that the 1S-3D-3S-4S sequence shows a limit raise with shortness > leaving the standard splinter bids to show more solid HCP hands. > > This hand is usually bid as 1S-3D-3S pass. Also, 1S-3D-3H is > usually an artificial counter-game try, so if you held the hand > above and partner did not bid either 4S or 3H, then you would > definitely pass. Sorry, I tried to post a hand that wanted to be in game even opposite a typical 11-13 (it wouldn't occur to me to play this in part score at teams, and I'd be extremely reluctant at pairs). > And if they are playing Bergen and the opener failed to raise to > game *AND* failed to counter-game try then there is much more > reason to believe that partner does not have the values for game. > So, without the UI, there is much more argument for passing 3S > unless the responder has shortness. Only if the UI suggests that partner is *better* than might be expected should you pass 3S if you have a hand that might otherwise consider 4S. It was reported that the UI giver had a minimum - I believe it is entirely possible (indeed likely) that the fact that he was minimum was conveyed by the *manner* in which he answered the question about 3D. However, since we have yet to see the "offending" hand - or indeed to find out how *this* pair play Bergen I still have no idea how to answer the original question about letting the result stand. 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 Mar 22 21:55:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MAt4o00664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:55:04 +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 (rd-ir.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MAssH00651 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 21:54:55 +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 LAA02707; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:43:25 +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 LAA00709; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:44:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:49:10 +0100 To: "Takis Pournaras" , "Bridge Laws" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <015501c1d183$f8876bb0$1556a8c0@newmedia.gr> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:28 22/03/2002 +0200, Takis Pournaras wrote: >[Gordon Bower] >I got myself into a lively online discussion with an Austrian expert about >psyching earlier this week. I was surprised to hear him say "in some >countries, psyching is not legal in first or second seat." Of course I >immediately started spouting about how the laws guarantee our right to psych >natural bids, etc, etc, and no SO would dare to make such a regulation. > >--- > >IMHO the Laws give the right to psych any bid. Neither in L40A or in L75B >says anything about psyching conventional bids. > >Also L40D gives the liverty to sponsoring organizations to regulate the use >of bidding or play conventions (or regulate partnership understandings) but >not to forbid psyching. And of course according to the definitions, a >psychic call is not a convention... AG : granted; However, opening 1S on KQxxx-Kxx-Jxx-xx is only a slight distortion (eg, one off the 18 rule and "normal" as to suit length), thus it is *not* a psyche (which is defined as a gross distortion), and thus, while psyches might not, according to many, be regulated, such openings may. Yes, I know, it's strange, but it helps avoiding the creation of "semi-psychics with controls" by some pairs. 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 Mar 22 22:28:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MBS5c04617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:28:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MBRtH04588 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:27:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1732.bb.online.no [80.212.214.196]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA26158 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:17:22 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:17:13 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" > >IMHO the Laws give the right to psych any bid. Neither in L40A or in L75B > >says anything about psyching conventional bids. > > > >Also L40D gives the liverty to sponsoring organizations to regulate the use > >of bidding or play conventions (or regulate partnership understandings) but > >not to forbid psyching. And of course according to the definitions, a > >psychic call is not a convention... > > AG : granted; However, opening 1S on KQxxx-Kxx-Jxx-xx is only a slight > distortion (eg, one off the 18 rule and "normal" as to suit length), thus > it is *not* a psyche (which is defined as a gross distortion), and thus, > while psyches might not, according to many, be regulated, such openings > may. Yes, I know, it's strange, but it helps avoiding the creation of > "semi-psychics with controls" by some pairs. Law40A: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - ..... This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the freedom to psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be formulated: The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to partner as it is to opponents. Law40D: Ths sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate ......actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. This law permits Sponsoring organisation to regulate conventions with no limitation, but it gives SO no authority to regulate psyches or deviations from agreements. It further gives Zonal organisations the power to regulate partnership understandings on opening bids at the one level on hands that have a strength less than 8HCP (on the 4-3-2-1 scale) and this authority may be delegated, for instance to SO. But nowhere is there any authority to ban an agreement that the above hand can be opened in 1S, it has the strength of just a jack below average. And nowhere is there any authority to ban an opening bid of 1S on the above hand even when the partnership understanding is that greater strength is required. 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 Mar 22 22:40:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MBedh05898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:40:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MBeVH05882 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:40:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2MBU3006930 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:30:03 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:30 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> Alain wrote: > AG : granted; However, opening 1S on KQxxx-Kxx-Jxx-xx is only a slight > distortion (eg, one off the 18 rule and "normal" as to suit length), > thus it is *not* a psyche (which is defined as a gross distortion), and > thus, while psyches might not, according to many, be regulated, such > openings may. Yes, I know, it's strange, but it helps avoiding the > creation of "semi-psychics with controls" by some pairs. I have to say that the above hand looks to be "within a king of average strength" - as such it is not subject to ZO/SO regulation of one level openings. It evaluates to 8.7 under the KR evaluator so should be OK. The wisdom of opening such hands is another matter entirely. (Of course the ZO/SO can forbid playing any subsequent conventions if the opening structure doesn't conform to rule of 18 - which would have the same effect but at least makes it obvious a back door is being used.) If the Austrians want to prevent psyching they can certainly write a regulation under permitted conventions: The following conventions are permitted only if a partnership's opening one-level bids *always* comply with the rule of 18: Take-out doubles, Cue-bids of shortage, Fourth suit forcing. otherwise only natural bids may be used - making a non-compliant call while an agreement to play any of the above is in force will give rise to immediate disqualification and a 3 year ban from all competitions. Even a "naturalist" like me would not be prepared to forego the above conventions just to be allowed to psyche occasionally. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 00:17:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MDGDp18927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:16:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com (mailout03.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MDG3H18909 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:16:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd05.sul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16oOjd-0006IP-09; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:05:33 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.62.19]) by fwd05.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16oOjY-0ryG9YC; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:05:28 +0100 Message-ID: <3C9B2C19.47C34D52@t-online.de> Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:05:29 +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: Gordon Bower , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower schrieb: Hi all, > > 10. Bluffgebote > > 10.5. Achtzehner - Regel > > In allen Paarturnieren muss eine Ansage von "Eins in Farbe" in erster und > zweiter Hand nach der "Achtzehner-Regel" zulaessig sein: Die Summe aus > allen Figurenpunkten und der Blattzahl in den beiden laengsten Farben muss > mindestens achtzehn betragen. Blanke Figuren duerfen voll gezaehlt werden. > In Anfaengerturnieren gilt die 18er-Regel auch in dritter > Hand. Erffoenungen mit Dreieredelfarben sind in solchen Turnieren > verboten. Die Bestimmung gilt auch fuer "Treff- und A - Linien". > > This translates as follows (please correct me, native speakers, if I err): > > Psychic bids > > The Rule of 18 > > In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand > much follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 > longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may > be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third > seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is > true in both club and A-level events. Small annotation: Treff- und A-Linien refers to events or flights which are restricted. As far as I am aware "Treff" is the most restricted, lowest class of a tournament, "A" the next higher. All Austrian tournaments I played in (I`m from Germany) had only one class, but special prizes for highest-ranked players from these categories. > Notice that this rule appears *in the section on psychic bidding*, not in > the section on allowable systems. I am assured that this rule exists for > the express purpose of forbidding anyone to psych a natural 1-bid, not to > regulate systemic 10HCP openings. > > Say it ain't so, folks. Does the WBF really permit this regulation to > stand? For what it`s worth, Germany has a regulation somewhat akin to the Austrian: Here in Germany psychic bids are generally allowed, with the following exceptions: Opening bids in first and second hand must be according to the rule of 18 if "Category C" applies (this is for restricted events, usually).No psychics of strong and forcing openings in any position in these events, and no "Brown sticker" either. In case anyone wants to know: "A" means anything goes, including HUMs, "B" excludes HUMs and only allows brown sticker in matches of at least 12 boards (most open events and even many club games use this category), "C" has restrictions (in addition to the ones mentioned above) for preempts (you may not open 2S on 6 small, but QJxxxx is ok, for example). This is used in some flighted events and some club games. "N" is for novice games and allows Stayman and Blackwood and not much else. Very little events of this type are played. Probably more A events than N events. Best regards Matthias Berghaus > GRB > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 00:21:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MDKv319535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:20:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MDKmH19516 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:20:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2MDAKq16645 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:10:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:10 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sven wrote: > This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the freedom > to psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be formulated: > The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to partner > as it is to opponents. Not legally it can't. If partner is as surprised (or otherwise) as would be a stranger of similar standard there can be no question of a partnership understanding. This applies even if opponents have never even seen a psyche before (perhaps due to playing in Austria). 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 Sat Mar 23 00:47:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MDkkN22389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:46:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MDkbH22375 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:46:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.132]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTD00A18N402W@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:36:02 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 09:50:19 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] rulings To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000201c1d1a6$56587aa0$844d003e@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: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_ItKjbgtqAqeur7RdqhnFWA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_ItKjbgtqAqeur7RdqhnFWA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable This is a personal story but it seems relevant to the latest threads. In = 1969 I =F9called to a table by E who complained that after a lengthy = auction N bid 4 NT [Blacwood] S 5D ; N 5 H after a long hesitation -and = S 6 H .N/S admitted the hesitation. I told them to continue ,And E to call me again if and when he felt he = was damaged. In due time I was called again by E ,as N made 12 tricks . = I ruled 5 H + 1 ,and advised N/S about their right to appeal. Appeal = they did , the AC overruled me and decided 6 H - bid and made. I was at that time Israel's CTD [till 1989] and it was the first and = only time that somebody appealed against my ruling. For some reason a member of the AC wrote to the Brdge World and the = Bridge Magazin [British] and asked for their opinion about the ruling = and the procedure [not mentioning the appeal] .I learned about it some = months later when both magazins approved both the procedure and the = ruling.=20 This was 1969 and this was not the first time I ruled like that. In 1970 = I was NPC of the Israeli team at the E.B.Champ. in Athens I've met = Harold Franklin WBF CTD in 1974 I was TD at the Olympiad in Las Palmas I = met Maury Braunstein and=20 this procedure and ruling was obvious ,under an in the 'spirit' of the = Laws. --Boundary_(ID_ItKjbgtqAqeur7RdqhnFWA) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
This is a personal = story but it=20 seems relevant to the latest threads. In 1969 I = =F9called to a=20 table by E who complained that after a lengthy auction N bid  4 NT=20 [Blacwood] S 5D ; N 5 H after a long hesitation -and S 6 H .N/S admitted = the=20 hesitation.
I told them to continue ,And E to call me = again if and=20 when he felt he was damaged. In due time I was called again by E ,as N = made 12=20 tricks . I ruled 5 H + 1 ,and advised N/S about their right to appeal. = Appeal=20 they did , the AC overruled me and decided 6 H - bid and = made.
I was at that time Israel's CTD [till = 1989] and=20 it was the first and only time that somebody appealed against my=20 ruling.
For some reason a member of the AC wrote = to the Brdge=20 World and the Bridge Magazin [British] and asked for their opinion about = the=20 ruling and the procedure [not mentioning the appeal] .I learned about it = some=20 months later when both magazins approved both the procedure and the=20 ruling. 
This was 1969 and = this was not the=20 first time I ruled like that. In 1970 I was NPC of the Israeli team at = the=20 E.B.Champ. in Athens I've met Harold Franklin WBF CTD in 1974 I was TD = at the=20 Olympiad in Las Palmas I met Maury Braunstein and
this procedure and ruling = was obvious=20 ,under an in the 'spirit' of the Laws.
--Boundary_(ID_ItKjbgtqAqeur7RdqhnFWA)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 01:01:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2ME10P24002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:01:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2ME0pH23984 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:00:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.132]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTD005J4NRTKY@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:50:19 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:49:01 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <001d01c1d1a8$540af640$844d003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You must be joking " immediate disqualification and a 3 year ban from all competition"----- Original Israel Erdenbaum Tel Aviv Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 1:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> > Alain wrote: > > > AG : granted; However, opening 1S on KQxxx-Kxx-Jxx-xx is only a slight > > distortion (eg, one off the 18 rule and "normal" as to suit length), > > thus it is *not* a psyche (which is defined as a gross distortion), and > > thus, while psyches might not, according to many, be regulated, such > > openings may. Yes, I know, it's strange, but it helps avoiding the > > creation of "semi-psychics with controls" by some pairs. > > I have to say that the above hand looks to be "within a king of average > strength" - as such it is not subject to ZO/SO regulation of one level > openings. It evaluates to 8.7 under the KR evaluator so should be OK. > The wisdom of opening such hands is another matter entirely. (Of course > the ZO/SO can forbid playing any subsequent conventions if the opening > structure doesn't conform to rule of 18 - which would have the same effect > but at least makes it obvious a back door is being used.) > > If the Austrians want to prevent psyching they can certainly write a > regulation under permitted conventions: > > The following conventions are permitted only if a partnership's opening > one-level bids *always* comply with the rule of 18: > Take-out doubles, > Cue-bids of shortage, > Fourth suit forcing. > otherwise only natural bids may be used - making a non-compliant call > while an agreement to play any of the above is in force will give rise to > immediate disqualification and a 3 year ban from all competitions. > > Even a "naturalist" like me would not be prepared to forego the above > conventions just to be allowed to psyche occasionally. > > 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 Sat Mar 23 01:40:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MEeJS28106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:40:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MEeAH28090 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:40:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.7]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTD0059OPLBXP@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:29:38 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:27:49 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <007d01c1d1ad$d214a400$844d003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What is a "completely different contract" if really completely different , it may be fairer but it's not bridge. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract > In-Reply-To: <002201c1d118$e68cec20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> > Sven wrote: > > > > > Once upon a time Directors "rolled back contracts" for > > > > iinstance because of UI during the auction, and ordered > > > > that a different contract than the one actually reached > > > > in the auction should be played. > > > > > > At rubber/Chicago "directors" still sometimes take this route even > > > today. > > > As long as this option is applied with care it can help produce a > > > more equitable result. > > > > No, it cannot. > > > > We have been through this discussion here before. Once the director > > looks at some cards and then makes a decision there is no way he > > can avoid giving away to all four players essential information on the > > cards he has inspected, information which should be classified as UI. > > I have seen a contract rolled back, quite correctly (ie we would all have > adjusted), by a host without even looking at the cards. The host has to be > very careful when applying this option as I said earlier but I have > seen it done several times when all 4 players at the table feel the result > to be fairer than adjusting to a completely different contract after play. > I am not recommending that the approach be taken at duplicate. Please > note that at rubber bridge the host cannot assign a non-balancing > adjustment (without paying for it out of his own pocket). > > 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 Sat Mar 23 01:44:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MEiP328525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:44:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MEiGH28503 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:44:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2MEXm614899 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:33:48 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:33 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <001d01c1d1a8$540af640$844d003e@erdnbaum> Israel wrote: > You must be joking " immediate disqualification > and a 3 year ban Just pointing out that the current WBF approach to enforcing L40 *would* enable a ZO/SO to effectively ban psyches. Personally I would rather see the ZO/SO disqualified for attempting to do so. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 02:03:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MF3AR00415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:03:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MF30H00397 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:03:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from john.asimere.com (john.asimere.com [192.168.0.15]) by mozart.asimere.com (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) with ESMTP id g2LF9Lo12053 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:09:21 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:40:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract References: <007d01c1d1ad$d214a400$844d003e@erdnbaum> In-Reply-To: <007d01c1d1ad$d214a400$844d003e@erdnbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <007d01c1d1ad$d214a400$844d003e@erdnbaum>, Israel Erdnbaum writes >What is a "completely different contract" >if really completely different , it may be fairer but it's not bridge. Israel, at rubber bridge anything goes, I assure you, and the game is not hidebound by the Laws which don't permit such actions. Rolling back a contract is *entirely* legal at rubber bridge. It *is* fairer and it *is* bridge. cheers john (who lost 25 points at pounds to one of his duplicate team-mates last night) >Best regards >Israel >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-meads" >To: >Cc: >Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:03 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract > > >> In-Reply-To: <002201c1d118$e68cec20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> >> Sven wrote: >> >> > > > Once upon a time Directors "rolled back contracts" for >> > > > iinstance because of UI during the auction, and ordered >> > > > that a different contract than the one actually reached >> > > > in the auction should be played. >> > > >> > > At rubber/Chicago "directors" still sometimes take this route even >> > > today. >> > > As long as this option is applied with care it can help produce a >> > > more equitable result. >> > >> > No, it cannot. >> > >> > We have been through this discussion here before. Once the director >> > looks at some cards and then makes a decision there is no way he >> > can avoid giving away to all four players essential information on the >> > cards he has inspected, information which should be classified as UI. >> >> I have seen a contract rolled back, quite correctly (ie we would all have >> adjusted), by a host without even looking at the cards. The host has to be >> very careful when applying this option as I said earlier but I have >> seen it done several times when all 4 players at the table feel the result >> to be fairer than adjusting to a completely different contract after play. >> I am not recommending that the approach be taken at duplicate. Please >> note that at rubber bridge the host cannot assign a non-balancing >> adjustment (without paying for it out of his own pocket). >> >> 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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 02:13:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MFDIG01676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:13:18 +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 g2MFD9H01657 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:13:09 +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 g2LFJUo12084 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:19:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:50:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] vps References: <000001c1d151$29d89320$fa44893e@pc> In-Reply-To: <000001c1d151$29d89320$fa44893e@pc> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000001c1d151$29d89320$fa44893e@pc>, LarryBennett writes > I know this isn't quite the subject matter for this forum, but can > anybody furnish me with a VP scale for 6 bd rnds Swiss PAIRS >   > Thanks, Larry The EBU Directors Manual does not have such an animal. The best I can offer is 7-9 boards. 49.5-50.5 10-10 50.5-51.7 11- 9 51.7-53.1 12- 8 53.1-54.7 13- 7 54.7-56.5 14- 6 56.5-58.5 15- 5 58.5-60.7 16- 4 60.7-63.1 17- 3 63.1-65.7 18- 2 65.7-68.5 19- 1 68.5+ 20- 0 If you look closely the differences increase by 0.2%. For 5-6 board matches I'd be inclined to start with 49.4-50.6 50.6-52.0 52.0-53.6 etc, 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 Sat Mar 23 02:13:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MFDYZ01703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:13:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MFDMH01684 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:13:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.74.157]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTD00ALIR4M8D@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:02:48 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:01:03 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <008c01c1d1b2$758f6440$844d003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is the strongest argument against forbidding something which is allowed by the Laws. Regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 3:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > In-Reply-To: <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> > Sven wrote: > > > This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the freedom > > to psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be formulated: > > The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to partner > > as it is to opponents. > > Not legally it can't. If partner is as surprised (or otherwise) as would > be a stranger of similar standard there can be no question of a > partnership understanding. This applies even if opponents have never even > seen a psyche before (perhaps due to playing in Austria). > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 02:27:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MFRUN03309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:27:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MFRLH03291 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:27:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1726.bb.online.no [80.212.214.190]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA15649 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:16:47 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001601c1d1b4$95be9c20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:16:47 +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 > Just pointing out that the current WBF approach to enforcing L40 *would* > enable a ZO/SO to effectively ban psyches. Their approach may, but the laws do not. (At least I haven't found any such justification, and I usually recognize it when I see 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 Sat Mar 23 02:39:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MFddx04691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:39:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MFdTH04672 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 02:39:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2446.bb.online.no [80.212.217.142]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA28866 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:28:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001c01c1d1b6$477e5800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <007d01c1d1ad$d214a400$844d003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:28:55 +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 > Israel, at rubber bridge anything goes, I assure you, and the game is > not hidebound by the Laws which don't permit such actions. Rolling back > a contract is *entirely* legal at rubber bridge. It *is* fairer and it > *is* bridge. cheers john Sorry, I'm lost. I can accept that there might be practical reasons for directing a board to be played in a particular contract, different from the one reached during the auction, but fairer????? How can it be fairer to the players if the Director (not in so many words) tells them before they start to play that "considering your auction and/or the way cards are distributed on this board you will reach a more correct result if you play the board in a contract of 3NT rather than the 4H which you reached. Therefore I roll back your contract to 3NT" (The actual contracts named here are of course just examples). Whatever the reason the Director has for a ruling like that will have to give UI away to the players. Rubber or Duplicate makes no difference. 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 Mar 23 03:08:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MG8WF07830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 03:08:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MG8NH07810 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 03:08:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2MFvtQ19988 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:57:55 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 15:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <001601c1d1b4$95be9c20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sven wrote: > > Just pointing out that the current WBF approach to enforcing L40 > > *would* enable a ZO/SO to effectively ban psyches. > > Their approach may, but the laws do not. (At least I haven't found any > such justification, and I usually recognize it when I see it) The ACBL has used the "you can't play conventions if.." approach to make it very difficult for pairs playing 10-12 NT to upgrade even a really good 9 count. The EBU tries to use the same approach to prevent opening non-conventional NTs on hands with a singleton (even 4441 with single A). The WBF has apparently said that SOs using such back door stratagems to prevent things of which they disapprove is all fine and dandy. Unless the WBF is actually prepared to say "this goes against the spirit of the game and will not be permitted under our auspices" there is nothing to stop a ZO/SO using the same stratagem to make psyching impossible 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 Sat Mar 23 03:13:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MGDla08377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 03:13:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MGDbH08360 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 03:13:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.71]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTD00A71TX1MV@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:03:03 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:00:26 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <001f01c1d1ba$e04931a0$ee4d003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I couldn't agree more Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > In-Reply-To: <001d01c1d1a8$540af640$844d003e@erdnbaum> > Israel wrote: > > > You must be joking " immediate disqualification > > and a 3 year ban > > Just pointing out that the current WBF approach to enforcing L40 *would* > enable a ZO/SO to effectively ban psyches. > > Personally I would rather see the ZO/SO disqualified for attempting to do > so. > > Tim > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 03:34:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MGYG210423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 03:34:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (mxout2.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MGY7H10408 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 03:34:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.2]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTD0063UUV9H2@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:23:35 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 18:22:18 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <001001c1d1bd$bd970620$024f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <007d01c1d1ad$d214a400$844d003e@erdnbaum> <001c01c1d1b6$477e5800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I hope John will give us an example of rolling back which is a fairer and happened at the table ,and how it was done.I would have to construct such an example ,and think that if forced I might succeed. What I was referring to was committees rolling back to a different contract and "playing " it out in a conference room. Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract > > Israel, at rubber bridge anything goes, I assure you, and the game is > > not hidebound by the Laws which don't permit such actions. Rolling back > > a contract is *entirely* legal at rubber bridge. It *is* fairer and it > > *is* bridge. cheers john > > Sorry, I'm lost. I can accept that there might be practical reasons for > directing a board to be played in a particular contract, different from > the one reached during the auction, but fairer????? > > How can it be fairer to the players if the Director (not in so many words) > tells them before they start to play that "considering your auction and/or > the way cards are distributed on this board you will reach a more correct > result if you play the board in a contract of 3NT rather than the 4H which > you reached. Therefore I roll back your contract to 3NT" (The actual > contracts named here are of course just examples). > > Whatever the reason the Director has for a ruling like that will have to > give UI away to the players. Rubber or Duplicate makes no difference. > > 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 Sat Mar 23 04:43:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MHgoH17272 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:42:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MHgfH17260 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:42:42 +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 g2LH7go12290 for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2002 17:07:42 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 16:38:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract References: <007d01c1d1ad$d214a400$844d003e@erdnbaum> <001c01c1d1b6$477e5800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001001c1d1bd$bd970620$024f003e@erdnbaum> In-Reply-To: <001001c1d1bd$bd970620$024f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001001c1d1bd$bd970620$024f003e@erdnbaum>, Israel Erdnbaum writes >I hope John will give us an example of rolling back which is a fairer and >happened at the table ,and how it was done.I would have to construct such an >example ,and think that if forced I might succeed. >What I was referring to was committees rolling back to a different contract >and "playing " it out in a conference room. Sorry, I missed that point. Once a table result has been obtained in duplicate, we then decide whether to adjust the score. We may well weight and split it when we do. At rubber there is no such option, and (as Tim had said - I lose money to him too btw) so it is perceived by the players, and allowed by the laws of rubber, to play the contract in a different strain and/or denomination with maybe even a different declarer to that obtained by the UI influenced auction. Of course the UI thereby obtained by the offending side is still an issue, and the number of tricks finally obtained could be subject to an adjustment. But in rubber one accepts being told "another trick to X-Y" when UI has been used. Where Tim and I play, even the most argumentative types will accept this fairly gracefully, as they cannot tolerate the thought that others might feel they've taken advantage. >Israel ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Sven Pran" >To: >Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 5:28 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract > > >> > Israel, at rubber bridge anything goes, I assure you, and the game is >> > not hidebound by the Laws which don't permit such actions. Rolling back >> > a contract is *entirely* legal at rubber bridge. It *is* fairer and it >> > *is* bridge. cheers john >> >> Sorry, I'm lost. I can accept that there might be practical reasons for >> directing a board to be played in a particular contract, different from >> the one reached during the auction, but fairer????? >> >> How can it be fairer to the players if the Director (not in so many words) >> tells them before they start to play that "considering your auction and/or >> the way cards are distributed on this board you will reach a more correct >> result if you play the board in a contract of 3NT rather than the 4H which >> you reached. Therefore I roll back your contract to 3NT" (The actual >> contracts named here are of course just examples). >> >> Whatever the reason the Director has for a ruling like that will have to >> give UI away to the players. Rubber or Duplicate makes no difference. >> >> 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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 05:45:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MIigI24161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 05:44:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MIiTH24137 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 05:44:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2MIXqx03745 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:33:52 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200203221833.g2MIXqx03745@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:33:52 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Walt Flory" at Mar 21, 2002 11:14:17 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 Walt, Unfortunately, what I know about their system is from ACBL Bulletin's and articles from years past. If I get a chance, I'll try to hunt up some info, but I don't have it readily available. -Ted. > Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 23:14:17 -0500 > From: Walt Flory > > Ted > > I'm very interested in anything you can tell me about the Cohen - Berkowitz > partnership agreements regarding Bergen raises, and also in anything you > can tell me about their system. I know it is based on Precision but other > than that virtually nothing. > > Thanks, > Walt Flory > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 05:47:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MIlEG24445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 05:47:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MIl4H24427 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 05:47:05 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2MIaUu03963 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:36:30 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200203221836.g2MIaUu03963@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? [cont] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:36:30 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Takis Pournaras" at Mar 22, 2002 11:06:58 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Takis Pournaras" > Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 11:06:58 +0200 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Ying" > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 9:07 PM > > The responder's shape is also pertinent. What was responder's > shape? > > --- > > Good ol' 4-4-3-2, 11HCP > In that case, I think the UI problem is quite problematic. Responder knows that partner could have a hand that would have accepted game opposite a limit raise, but not opposite a constructive raise. The bid of 4S is definitely suggested by the UI and should not be allowed. Responder does not have anything additional that hasn't already been shown and should not be allowed the 4S call. -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 Mar 23 05:52:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MIqU924958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 05:52:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MIqMH24944 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 05:52:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16oTz7-00020p-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:41:53 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020322133722.00b5dcc0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:43:18 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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 10:57 AM 3/22/02, twm wrote: >The ACBL has used the "you can't play conventions if.." approach to make >it very difficult for pairs playing 10-12 NT to upgrade even a really >good >9 count. The EBU tries to use the same approach to prevent opening >non-conventional NTs on hands with a singleton (even 4441 with single A). >The WBF has apparently said that SOs using such back door stratagems to >prevent things of which they disapprove is all fine and dandy. >Unless the WBF is actually prepared to say "this goes against the spirit >of the game and will not be permitted under our auspices" there is >nothing >to stop a ZO/SO using the same stratagem to make psyching impossible too. Unless the WBF is actually prepared to say "this goes against the spirit of the game and will not be permitted under our auspices" there is nothing to stop a ZO/SO using the same stratagem to require that everyone use some particular favored bidding system, with no deviations permitted, 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 Mar 23 05:55:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MIt8a25239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 05:55:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MIsvH25220 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 05:54:58 +1100 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2MIiOj04273 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:44:24 -0500 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200203221844.g2MIiOj04273@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:44:24 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-meads" at Mar 22, 2002 10:39:00 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, 22 Mar 2002 10:39 +0000 (GMT) > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > > In-Reply-To: <200203211907.g2LJ7Co27808@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > Ted Ying wrote: > > > I mean how do you bid KT9x,AJ9x,QJ9,xx playing Bergen raises? > > > > As I mentioned before, in the Eastern US, it is common to play > > that the 1S-3D-3S-4S sequence shows a limit raise with shortness > > leaving the standard splinter bids to show more solid HCP hands. > > > > This hand is usually bid as 1S-3D-3S pass. Also, 1S-3D-3H is > > usually an artificial counter-game try, so if you held the hand > > above and partner did not bid either 4S or 3H, then you would > > definitely pass. > > Sorry, I tried to post a hand that wanted to be in game even opposite a > typical 11-13 (it wouldn't occur to me to play this in part score at > teams, and I'd be extremely reluctant at pairs). > So, you as responder have shown 10-12 HCP with 4 trumps. Partner had an option to accept game, to make a counter game try, and you ignore both of those options and force to game? There are many hands that have no more than 9 tricks that partner could have opened and you are driving to game? Even at teams, this seems very top/bottom or swing oriented. I would have a hard time believing this as a director and in a committee. Let's look at this a different way. If you were not playing Bergen and you only played standard limit raises, 1S-3S, what would you bid on this hand? Would you bid some sort of game forcing raise like Jacoby 2NT? Or would you bid a forcing NT followed by 4S on any response? Take away the gadget and how would you bid this? > > And if they are playing Bergen and the opener failed to raise to > > game *AND* failed to counter-game try then there is much more > > reason to believe that partner does not have the values for game. > > So, without the UI, there is much more argument for passing 3S > > unless the responder has shortness. > > Only if the UI suggests that partner is *better* than might be expected > should you pass 3S if you have a hand that might otherwise consider 4S. > It was reported that the UI giver had a minimum - I believe it is entirely > possible (indeed likely) that the fact that he was minimum was conveyed by > the *manner* in which he answered the question about 3D. > > However, since we have yet to see the "offending" hand - or indeed to find > out how *this* pair play Bergen I still have no idea how to answer the > original question about letting the result stand. > > Tim > Actually, the UI given does suggest that partner might be better. Remember, partner does not know if you have a limit or a constructive raise and responded accordingly. He might have a game accept for a limit raise and not for a constructive raise and decided to sign off. He could easily have enough for game. My analysis above is what the responder should be basing his/her analysis on. Responder should determine that opener actually knew what the bid meant and after turning down a limit raise and not counter-game-trying, you have to have a really good reason to bid on to game. I don't think that the hand you gave as an example fits those criteria. To me, the only thing that could suggest bidding game on the example hand is use of UI. -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 Mar 23 06:39:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MJdZd29950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:39:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MJdPH29931 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:39:26 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2MJSuH16754 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:28:56 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:28 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? 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: <200203221844.g2MIiOj04273@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Ted wrote: > Let's look at this a different way. If you were not playing Bergen > and you only played standard limit raises, 1S-3S, what would you > bid on this hand? Would you bid some sort of game forcing raise > like Jacoby 2NT? Or would you bid a forcing NT followed by 4S on > any response? Take away the gadget and how would you bid this? Without gadgets I will just bid 1S - 4S. It's not an easy hand to bid as I don't have any way to tell pard that slam may be on if he is top weight. I figured that playing Bergen I *would* be able to vaguely explore slam by going via 3D to 4S - it seemed a sensible use for the sequence. And yes, I do have a slightly swingy approach to the game. > Actually, the UI given does suggest that partner might be better. > Remember, partner does not know if you have a limit or a constructive > raise and responded accordingly. He might have a game accept for a > limit raise and not for a constructive raise and decided to sign off. > He could easily have enough for game. The UI from the actual answers says that for sure. But 8 times out of 10 the *way those answers are given* would tell me, as the partner, either: a) He doesn't care, he has a minimum at best and is going to bid 3S; or b) He doesn't know, but knows it matters, he bid 3S as the safe option. Are you suggesting that a player who knows it's an a) (and for whom 4S is indeed an LA) should pass 3S and argue b) to the TD. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 06:42:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MJg2N00239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:42:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MJfsH00223 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:41:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 12396 invoked by uid 504); 22 Mar 2002 19:31:24 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.467921 secs); 22 Mar 2002 19:31:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.177) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 19:31:22 -0000 Message-ID: <005201c1d1d7$b58439c0$b116b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:28:11 +1200 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: Alain Gottcheiner To: Takis Pournaras ; Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > At 11:28 22/03/2002 +0200, Takis Pournaras wrote: > >[Gordon Bower] > >I got myself into a lively online discussion with an Austrian expert about > >psyching earlier this week. I was surprised to hear him say "in some > >countries, psyching is not legal in first or second seat." Of course I > >immediately started spouting about how the laws guarantee our right to psych > >natural bids, etc, etc, and no SO would dare to make such a regulation. > > > >--- > > > >IMHO the Laws give the right to psych any bid. Neither in L40A or in L75B > >says anything about psyching conventional bids. > > > >Also L40D gives the liverty to sponsoring organizations to regulate the use > >of bidding or play conventions (or regulate partnership understandings) but > >not to forbid psyching. And of course according to the definitions, a > >psychic call is not a convention... > > AG : granted; However, opening 1S on KQxxx-Kxx-Jxx-xx is only a slight > distortion (eg, one off the 18 rule and "normal" as to suit length), thus > it is *not* a psyche (which is defined as a gross distortion), and thus, > while psyches might not, according to many, be regulated, such openings > may. Yes, I know, it's strange, but it helps avoiding the creation of > "semi-psychics with controls" by some pairs. > I am sure I won't agree but I don't think I understand your point. Are you saying that a 1s opening on a five-card suit and 9 points can be regulated? Not if the opening is non-conventional. SO etc only have the power to regulate "king or more below average" hands and conventions. Any 9-count hand is neither. 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 Mar 23 06:54:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MJrRv01546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:53:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MJrJH01531 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:53:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 17209 invoked by uid 504); 22 Mar 2002 19:42:48 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.689135 secs); 22 Mar 2002 19:42:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.177) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 19:42:47 -0000 Message-ID: <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:39:36 +1200 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: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Law40A: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally > misleading > call - such as a psychic bid - ..... > > This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the freedom to > psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be formulated: > The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to partner > as it is to opponents. I don't agree. There are many reasons why partner will be less surprised. IMO the only restriction that can be deduced from law happens if and when a psyche stops being a psyche and becomes a part of your partnership agreements. > > Law40D: Ths sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play > conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate ......actions at > the > one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. > > This law permits Sponsoring organisation to regulate conventions with no > limitation, > but it gives SO no authority to regulate psyches or deviations from > agreements. > It further gives Zonal organisations the power to regulate partnership > understandings > on opening bids at the one level on hands that have a strength less than > 8HCP > (on the 4-3-2-1 scale) and this authority may be delegated, for instance to > SO. The Milton-Work Point count or any similar is not enshrined in law. I believe that WBF use a definition of average is "one card of every rank". I am not sure how they rank deviations from that. It is easy to creat hands that would be difficult to rank as above average, below average or average. I would certainly be willing to argue that some 7 counts were better than a king below average and some 8 counts worse. > > But nowhere is there any authority to ban an agreement that the above hand > can > be opened in 1S, it has the strength of just a jack below average. And > nowhere is > there any authority to ban an opening bid of 1S on the above hand even when > the partnership understanding is that greater strength is required. 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 Mar 23 06:58:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MJwAu02106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:58:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MJw2H02084 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 06:58:02 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 19288 invoked by uid 504); 22 Mar 2002 19:47:31 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.874029 secs); 22 Mar 2002 19:47:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.177) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 19:47:30 -0000 Message-ID: <006e01c1d1d9$f675aca0$b116b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:44:19 +1200 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: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > In-Reply-To: <001d01c1d1a8$540af640$844d003e@erdnbaum> > Israel wrote: > > > You must be joking " immediate disqualification > > and a 3 year ban > > Just pointing out that the current WBF approach to enforcing L40 *would* > enable a ZO/SO to effectively ban psyches. > > Personally I would rather see the ZO/SO disqualified for attempting to do > so. > > Tim Absolutely!!! 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 Mar 23 07:14:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MKDWN03833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:13:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MKDOH03820 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:13:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 26081 invoked by uid 504); 22 Mar 2002 20:02:53 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.891584 secs); 22 Mar 2002 20:02:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.177) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 20:02:52 -0000 Message-ID: <007f01c1d1dc$1c117140$b116b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020322133722.00b5dcc0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:59:41 +1200 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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 6:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Unless the WBF is actually prepared to say "this goes against the > spirit of the game and will not be permitted under our auspices" there > is nothing to stop a ZO/SO using the same stratagem to require that > everyone use some particular favored bidding system, with no deviations > permitted, either. Why stop there - play conventions must be the same, and the scoring takes too long and since every one is playing the same conventions scores at MPs will be 50% and all matches at IMPs will be draws ... It is all nonsense. It is time the WBF stood up to these SO rather than make unconvincing convoluted arguments allowing these ludicrous regulations. 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 Mar 23 07:14:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MKEE503919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:14:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MKDxH03880 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:14:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.49]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTE00B5Z51LEW@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:03:23 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:02:08 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: John Probst Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <002e01c1d1dc$73745a60$314c003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <007d01c1d1ad$d214a400$844d003e@erdnbaum> <001001c1d1b9$b3bf53e0$ee4d003e@erdnbaum> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There simply is no good [bridgewise ]way to solve the problem. You don't like A+A but it takes care of the problem of bad judgement decisions and at least ensures equity. Cheers Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract > In message <001001c1d1b9$b3bf53e0$ee4d003e@erdnbaum>, Israel Erdnbaum > writes > >I am sure that rolling back the contract can be fairer and when it's done in > >rubber bridge by competent people certainly is fairer. What I meant, was > >committees rolling back to a completely different contract and deciding at > >the conference table what the result should be. > >Do you think that's bridge? > > I don't much like it. I can't see a better way. I'm certainly against > awarding A+/A- which isn't bridge at all :). cheers john > > >Regards Israel > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 07:39:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MKdOS06647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:39:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f60.law15.hotmail.com [64.4.23.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MKdEH06630 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:39:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 12:28:37 -0800 Received: from 66.31.3.32 by lw15fd.law15.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:28:37 GMT X-Originating-IP: [66.31.3.32] From: "richard willey" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 20:28:37 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Mar 2002 20:28:37.0650 (UTC) FILETIME=[25953720:01C1D1E0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Unless the WBF is actually prepared to say "this goes against the >spirit of the game and will not be permitted under our auspices" there >is nothing to stop a ZO/SO using the same stratagem to require that >everyone use some particular favored bidding system, with no deviations >permitted, either. It is worth noting that on earlier occasions some of the the same noteables stated that the Zonal Authorities would be within their rights to use the same regulation to ban left handed players from using any conventions. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Mar 23 07:41:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MKfFS06885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:41:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MKf4H06862 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:41:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.49]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTE00BBZ6AQHX@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:30:28 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:29:13 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <004901c1d1e0$3baf2ca0$314c003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If 8 times out of 10 you know "by the way those answers are given " that a] he doesn't care,,.... b] he doesn't know...., How can you play bridge under the standards nowadays required especially" having a slightly swingy approach" Cheers Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? > In-Reply-To: <200203221844.g2MIiOj04273@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> > Ted wrote: > > > Let's look at this a different way. If you were not playing Bergen > > and you only played standard limit raises, 1S-3S, what would you > > bid on this hand? Would you bid some sort of game forcing raise > > like Jacoby 2NT? Or would you bid a forcing NT followed by 4S on > > any response? Take away the gadget and how would you bid this? > > Without gadgets I will just bid 1S - 4S. It's not an easy hand to bid as I > don't have any way to tell pard that slam may be on if he is top weight. > I figured that playing Bergen I *would* be able to vaguely explore slam by > going via 3D to 4S - it seemed a sensible use for the sequence. > And yes, I do have a slightly swingy approach to the game. > > > Actually, the UI given does suggest that partner might be better. > > Remember, partner does not know if you have a limit or a constructive > > raise and responded accordingly. He might have a game accept for a > > limit raise and not for a constructive raise and decided to sign off. > > He could easily have enough for game. > > The UI from the actual answers says that for sure. But 8 times out of 10 > the *way those answers are given* would tell me, as the partner, either: > a) He doesn't care, he has a minimum at best and is going to bid 3S; or > b) He doesn't know, but knows it matters, he bid 3S as the safe option. > Are you suggesting that a player who knows it's an a) (and for whom 4S is > indeed an LA) should pass 3S and argue b) to the TD. > > 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 Sat Mar 23 07:50:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MKoDu07844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:50:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MKo1H07811 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 07:50:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.49]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTE0078M6POCL@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:39:27 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 22:38:09 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It is not deduced from the Law - but a psyche is a psyche only when it is as surprising to partner as to opponents. regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sven Pran > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:17 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > Law40A: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally > > misleading > > call - such as a psychic bid - ..... > > > > This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the freedom to > > psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be formulated: > > The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to partner > > as it is to opponents. > > I don't agree. There are many reasons why partner will be less surprised. > > IMO the only restriction that can be deduced from law happens if and when a > psyche stops being a psyche and becomes a part of your partnership > agreements. > > > > > Law40D: Ths sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or > play > > conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate ......actions > at > > the > > one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. > > > > This law permits Sponsoring organisation to regulate conventions with no > > limitation, > > but it gives SO no authority to regulate psyches or deviations from > > agreements. > > It further gives Zonal organisations the power to regulate partnership > > understandings > > on opening bids at the one level on hands that have a strength less than > > 8HCP > > (on the 4-3-2-1 scale) and this authority may be delegated, for instance > to > > SO. > > The Milton-Work Point count or any similar is not enshrined in law. > > I believe that WBF use a definition of average is "one card of every rank". > I am not sure how they rank deviations from that. It is easy to creat hands > that would be difficult to rank as above average, below average or average. > > I would certainly be willing to argue that some 7 counts were better than a > king below average and some 8 counts worse. > > > > > But nowhere is there any authority to ban an agreement that the above hand > > can > > be opened in 1S, it has the strength of just a jack below average. And > > nowhere is > > there any authority to ban an opening bid of 1S on the above hand even > when > > the partnership understanding is that greater strength is required. > > Wayne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 08:28:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MLRFw11329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:27:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MLR7H11314 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:27:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 27421 invoked by uid 504); 22 Mar 2002 21:16:37 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.939309 secs); 22 Mar 2002 21:16:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.177) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 21:16:35 -0000 Message-ID: <00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:13:21 +1200 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: Israel Erdnbaum To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > It is not deduced from the Law - but a psyche is a psyche only when it is as > surprising to partner as to opponents. > regards Israel A psyche is a psyche if it is a gross misdescription of honour strength. There are many reasons why partner might be less (or more) surprised than the opponents. Only the lack of surprise that comes from partnership agreement (explicit or implicit) is written in the law. And then we no longer have a psyche but an undisclosed partnership agreement. 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 Mar 23 09:11:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MMAwp15864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:10:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MMAnH15847 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:10:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.180]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTE00B6QAGBS4@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:00:13 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:58:57 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <003c01c1d1ec$c5a07980$b44d003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum> <00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A psyche is a gross misdescription of honour strength and/or suit length but only when it's a surprise to partner as it is to the opponents. Sorry you are right, I realised it as soon as I have pressed the send key. Regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Israel Erdnbaum > To: Wayne Burrows > Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:38 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > It is not deduced from the Law - but a psyche is a psyche only when it is > as > > surprising to partner as to opponents. > > regards Israel > > A psyche is a psyche if it is a gross misdescription of honour strength. > > There are many reasons why partner might be less (or more) surprised than > the opponents. > > Only the lack of surprise that comes from partnership agreement (explicit or > implicit) is written in the law. And then we no longer have a psyche but an > undisclosed partnership agreement. > > Wayne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 09:21:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MML8316943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:21:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2MMKxH16925 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:21:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.58]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTE00B8OAXASX@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:10:25 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 00:08:40 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum> <00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well I am not so good at defining things so it's enough to say it m u s t be a s u r p r i s e to partner. Regarda Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Israel Erdnbaum > To: Wayne Burrows > Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 8:38 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > It is not deduced from the Law - but a psyche is a psyche only when it is > as > > surprising to partner as to opponents. > > regards Israel > > A psyche is a psyche if it is a gross misdescription of honour strength. > > There are many reasons why partner might be less (or more) surprised than > the opponents. > > Only the lack of surprise that comes from partnership agreement (explicit or > implicit) is written in the law. And then we no longer have a psyche but an > undisclosed partnership agreement. > > 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 Mar 23 09:28:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MMRgW17656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:27:42 +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 g2MMRXH17639 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:27:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16oXLN-0000bc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:17:05 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020322165659.00ab07b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 17:18:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <007f01c1d1dc$1c117140$b116b9d2@laptop> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020322133722.00b5dcc0@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 02:59 PM 3/22/02, Wayne wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau > > > Unless the WBF is actually prepared to say "this goes against the > > spirit of the game and will not be permitted under our auspices" there > > is nothing to stop a ZO/SO using the same stratagem to require that > > everyone use some particular favored bidding system, with no deviations > > permitted, either. > >Why stop there - play conventions must be the same, and the scoring takes >too long and since every one is playing the same conventions scores at MPs >will be 50% and all matches at IMPs will be draws ... > >It is all nonsense. > >It is time the WBF stood up to these SO rather than make unconvincing >convoluted arguments allowing these ludicrous regulations. I couldn't agree more, in theory. And I strongly suspect that many, probably most, of those who run the WBF would agree also. But I very much doubt that the WBF can, in reality, stand up to those SOs -- especially the ACBL, which is clearly the 800-pound gorilla of the WBF. The reality seems to be that the WBF has less power than its larger member organizations. If the WBF were to threaten those SOs who make a mockery of the laws by finding such alleged loopholes in L40 with barring them from participating in world-level competitions, they would have to fear that some of them -- again, the ACBL in particular -- would call them on it rather than give in. If that happened, the WBF might well collapse. Still, I think it would have a salubrious effect if the WBF were to officially denounce the practice, albeit without threatening to do anything if their statement were ignored by their member organizations. As it would be, I'm convinced, by the ACBL, at least. But it couldn't hurt to let a little sunshine in by at least publicizing and exposing such nefariousness, hoping that the moral suasion and bad PR might eventually have some effect. It might be, though, that even that would anger the gorilla... 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 Mar 23 09:35:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2MMZ3L18455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:35:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2MMYsH18439 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:34:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0466.bb.online.no [80.212.209.210]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA19282 for ; Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:24:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:24:16 +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 > > Law40A: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally > > misleading > > call - such as a psychic bid - ..... > > > > This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the freedom to > > psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be formulated: > > The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to partner > > as it is to opponents. > > I don't agree. There are many reasons why partner will be less surprised. Yes, and the usual reason is partnership experience which immediately makes the psyche illegal. (As you stated in your next sentence) > > IMO the only restriction that can be deduced from law happens if and when a > psyche stops being a psyche and becomes a part of your partnership > agreements. > ......... > > It further gives Zonal organisations the power to regulate partnership > > understandings on opening bids at the one level on hands that have > > a strength less than 8HCP (on the 4-3-2-1 scale) and this authority > > may be delegated, for instance to SO. > > The Milton-Work Point count or any similar is not enshrined in law. Of course it isn't, but am I to avoid any attempt to translate the text in the laws to fit the Rule of 18 for convenience to others? I distinctly pointed out that all this was based upon the 4-3-2-1 scale (Milton-Work), and if you check it out you will probably find that 8 HCP on this scale is just above the limit "a King below average". Other scales, other values but the same principles. > > I believe that WBF use a definition of average is "one card of every rank". > I am not sure how they rank deviations from that. It is easy to creat hands > that would be difficult to rank as above average, below average or average. > > I would certainly be willing to argue that some 7 counts were better than a > king below average and some 8 counts worse. Most certainly yes, but when you need some classification rules you use the best available, and that probably happens to be HCP (possibly together with assessment of extra values like long suits or deficiencies like lack of Aces and/or Kings for the HCP) 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 Mar 23 11:06:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N05jg28071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:05:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2N05cH28055 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:05:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 1920 invoked by uid 504); 22 Mar 2002 23:55:07 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.44856 secs); 22 Mar 2002 23:55:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.236) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Mar 2002 23:55:05 -0000 Message-ID: <008001c1d1fc$8d472ba0$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:51:53 +1200 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: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > I would certainly be willing to argue that some 7 counts were better than > a > > king below average and some 8 counts worse. > > Most certainly yes, but when you need some classification rules you use the > best available, and that probably happens to be HCP (possibly together with > assessment of extra values like long suits or deficiencies like lack of Aces > and/or Kings for the HCP) My position is: If the law says a 'king below' then i should be allowed to argue that a particular hand is not 'king below' even if some other judgement/count says it is. Of course the TD or committee don't have to agree but I think it is wrong if they automatically won't listen to my argument. ----------- By the way I have posted this information before: The average suit lengths of your longest suit; 2nd longest; 3rd longest; 4th longest are 4.900773564 3.667007628 2.734530388 1.697688419 That means the average length of your two longest suit is 8.567781192 Therefore if a 'Rule of 18' type rule is your panacea for ranking hand strength then an average hand is 18.567781192 and a king below is 15.567781192 so 'rule of 15' is ok but 'rule of 16' is not. Notice also that 'rule of 18' is nearly average. My point above is that if you use this judgement that that does not prevent me arguing that a particular hand is better or worse than the count 'rule of 15' (or any other rule). Wayne Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 11:20:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N0KB329634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:20:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2N0K3H29622 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:20:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 7897 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 00:09:32 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.279774 secs); 23 Mar 2002 00:09:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.236) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 00:09:31 -0000 Message-ID: <008401c1d1fe$9118bb20$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:06:21 +1200 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: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > Law40A: A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally > > > misleading > > > call - such as a psychic bid - ..... > > > > > > This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the freedom > to > > > psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be formulated: > > > The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to partner > > > as it is to opponents. > > > > I don't agree. There are many reasons why partner will be less surprised. > > Yes, and the usual reason is partnership experience which immediately > makes the psyche illegal. (As you stated in your next sentence) > Its not a psyche then. It may be an illegal partnership agreement and it may be an undisclosed agreement but it is not a psyche. Here is an example: If in my partnership we open 1s on jxx axx kxx jxxx and the like regularly so that a partnership agreement develops then this is not a psyche and it is not illegal. This bid is non-conventional (length 3-cards in spades) and not a king below average (9 hcp; rule of 16 etc etc). But we must disclose this agreement. A practical problem the occurs to players who bid like this is that there is so much propaganda out there about psyches whether they disclose or not they are likely to get hit by a tonne of bricks. 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 Mar 23 11:22:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N0Mhr29881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:22:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2N0MZH29868 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:22:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 9031 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 00:12:04 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.980874 secs); 23 Mar 2002 00:12:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.236) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 00:12:03 -0000 Message-ID: <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:08:53 +1200 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: Israel Erdnbaum To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Well I am not so good at defining things so it's enough to say it m u s t > be a > s u r p r i s e to partner. Where is this surprise written in law? I don't see that "surprise" and "based on partnership understanding" have even closely related meanings. 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 Mar 23 11:52:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N0pDN03009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:51:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2N0p4H02994 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:51:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1300.bb.online.no [80.212.213.20]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA24420 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:40:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001101c1d203$565aa340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008401c1d1fe$9118bb20$ec16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:40:29 +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 > Its not a psyche then. It may be an illegal partnership agreement and it > may be an undisclosed agreement but it is not a psyche. > > Here is an example: > > If in my partnership we open 1s on > > jxx > axx > kxx > jxxx > > and the like regularly so that a partnership agreement develops then this is > not a psyche and it is not illegal. If your system declaration states that 1S shows 5+ and 12-19HCP then this opening bid qualifies as a psyche. But if your partner is so accustomed to your bidding that he is prepared for the possibility you occationally (not even regularly!) do open 1S on the above hand in spite of what your system declaration has told opponents then that experience ("lack of surprise") makes the bid illegal whether you prefer still to claim it being a psyche or not. > > This bid is non-conventional (length 3-cards in spades) and not a king below > average (9 hcp; rule of 16 etc etc). > > But we must disclose this agreement. Exactly > > A practical problem the occurs to players who bid like this is that there is > so much propaganda out there about psyches whether they disclose or not they > are likely to get hit by a tonne of bricks. Too right, if their partnership experience includes knowledge that has not been volunteered to 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 Sat Mar 23 11:58:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N0w5t03813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:58:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2N0vuH03792 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 11:57:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1300.bb.online.no [80.212.213.20]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA24798 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:47:16 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:47:16 +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 > > Well I am not so good at defining things so it's enough to say it m u s t > > be a > > s u r p r i s e to partner. > > Where is this surprise written in law? > > I don't see that "surprise" and "based on partnership understanding" have > even closely related meanings. No? So you never get surprised if your partner out of a blue sky makes a bid contrary to everything you have agreed upon? I can understand that you do not get too surprised if your reaction to partners call could be: "So you made another one of those psyches?". Your experience with partner which made you make such a statement is in itself a proof of a violation of Law 40A even if it was two years since last time he did such a thing - unless you made certain that opponents were equally alert on that possibility as you could be. This is where "surprise" enters the picture, not as a quotation from the laws but as a consequence of the laws. 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 Mar 23 13:17:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N2GnF12116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:16:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2N2GgH12101 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:16:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 27632 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 02:06:10 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.806572 secs); 23 Mar 2002 02:06:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.147) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 02:06:08 -0000 Message-ID: <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:02:57 +1200 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: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > Well I am not so good at defining things so it's enough to say it m u s > t > > > be a > > > s u r p r i s e to partner. > > > > Where is this surprise written in law? > > > > I don't see that "surprise" and "based on partnership understanding" have > > even closely related meanings. > > No? > So you never get surprised if your partner out of a blue sky makes a > bid contrary to everything you have agreed upon? Of course I might be surprised. But I might not be surprise and that or rather the bid may not be based on a partnership understanding. > > I can understand that you do not get too surprised if your reaction to > partners call could be: "So you made another one of those psyches?". > > Your experience with partner which made you make such a statement > is in itself a proof of a violation of Law 40A even if it was two years > since last time he did such a thing - unless you made certain that > opponents were equally alert on that possibility as you could be. Partnership understanding and partnership experience are not the same thing. Understandings need to be disclosed in advance, experience needs to be disclosed when explaining in response to an inquiry. > > This is where "surprise" enters the picture, not as a quotation from the > laws but as a consequence of the laws. > Surprise or rather the lack of it may be based on many things other than a partnership understanding. Experience, a player's general reputation (but not part of your partnership experience), general bridge knowledge etc etc. My last psyche (and i think i psyche relatively infrequently) was 2s showing spades and a minor on something like : 4 4 qxxxx jxxxxx i remember those 4's. I led one and ruffed with the other In around a year of playing infrequently together I have never made such an outrageous call. Nevertheless I believe my partner was less 'surprised' than my opponents. I also would defend to the hilt that we have no partnership understanding that needs to be disclosed to any opponents. 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 Mar 23 13:29:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N2TWO13526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:29:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2N2TOH13512 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:29:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 980 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 02:18:53 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.467348 secs); 23 Mar 2002 02:18:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.147) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 02:18:51 -0000 Message-ID: <00ad01c1d210$a28ace40$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008401c1d1fe$9118bb20$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001101c1d203$565aa340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:15:40 +1200 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: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > If your system declaration states that 1S shows 5+ and 12-19HCP then this > opening bid qualifies as a psyche. > > But if your partner is so accustomed to your bidding that he is prepared for > the possibility you occationally (not even regularly!) do open 1S on the > above > hand in spite of what your system declaration has told opponents then that > experience ("lack of surprise") makes the bid illegal whether you prefer > still to > claim it being a psyche or not. The bid is not illegal the disclosure is inadequate if this is part of your partnership understanding. I do not see that occasional violations necessarily create a partnership agreement that needs to be disclosed. Law 75 deals with habitual violations. And when a violation is habitual it merely states that an implicit agreement *may* be created which needs to be disclosed. If habitual violations merely may create implicit agreements then occasional violations must necessarily be less likely to create an agreement that needs to be disclosed. Of course, experience of violations, whether or not they are, or have become, part of your agreements need to be disclosed in response to a question. e.g. 1s shows 12-20 with 5 spades, in 3rd chair a psyche is possible. The later need not be disclosed if it is an inference drawn from 'general bridge knowledge'. I need to disclose "...all special information ... through partnership agreement or partnership experience ... but not ... general knowledge..." L75C. 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 Mar 23 14:18:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N3IHU18657 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:18:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2N3I7H18639 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:18:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1300.bb.online.no [80.212.213.20]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA03363; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:07:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Wayne Burrows" , References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:07:30 +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 > Partnership understanding and partnership experience are not the same thing. > > Understandings need to be disclosed in advance, experience needs to be > disclosed when explaining in response to an inquiry. Please look up Law 75. The laws do not distinguish between partnership understanding and partnership experience when it comes to disclosing agreements to opponents. They are both considered part of partnership agreements, and as such shall be fully and freely available to 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 Sat Mar 23 14:36:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N3aRP20063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:36:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2N3aIH20050 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:36:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1300.bb.online.no [80.212.213.20]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id EAA28130; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:25:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003101c1d21a$66f06de0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008401c1d1fe$9118bb20$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001101c1d203$565aa340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00ad01c1d210$a28ace40$ec16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 04:25:37 +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 > The bid is not illegal the disclosure is inadequate if this is part of your > partnership understanding. Are you splitting hairs? The bid is illegal under Law 40A if there is an element of partnership understanding involved. > > I do not see that occasional violations necessarily create a partnership > agreement that needs to be disclosed. You better be careful at the table. If the "occational violations" are occational enough for you to be mentally prepared for the possibility then you have established a partnership experience as part of your partnership agreements. > > Law 75 deals with habitual violations. And when a violation is habitual it > merely states that an implicit agreement *may* be created which needs to be > disclosed. > > If habitual violations merely may create implicit agreements then occasional > violations must necessarily be less likely to create an agreement that needs > to be disclosed. If there is the slightest doubt that you was mentally prepared for a particular violation of agreements from partner, based upon your experience from maybe long time ago, and your actions bear indications of this condition, you will most certainly find yourself in trouble if you meet a competent Director unless you have shared this experience to opponents without being asked. > > Of course, experience of violations, whether or not they are, or have > become, part of your agreements need to be disclosed in response to a > question. e.g. 1s shows 12-20 with 5 spades, in 3rd chair a psyche is > possible. The later need not be disclosed if it is an inference drawn from > 'general bridge knowledge'. > > I need to disclose "...all special information ... through partnership > agreement or partnership experience ... but not ... general knowledge..." > L75C. If your "general knowledge" goes with any partner - accepted. If it goes with this particular partner - No, then it is no longer general knowledge. 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 Mar 23 18:01:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2N70X311028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:00:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2N70NH11004 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 18:00:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from nyc.rr.com (66-65-66-59.nyc.rr.com [66.65.66.59]) by nycsmtp2out.rdc-nyc.rr.com (8.12.1/Road Runner SMTP Server 1.0) with ESMTP id g2N6lnlv002085 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:47:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C9C2588.C0E21CD8@nyc.rr.com> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 01:49:44 -0500 From: Michael Kopera X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-WorldNet (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? References: <200203211915.g2LJFC128295@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The well-known example didn't seem right to me since Cohen is known to want to keep things as simple as possible in today's complexities. According to Berkowitz, they play 1S-3D as a (4card) limit raise, just possibly a soft game raise altho most soft game raises would just bid 4S. No other Bergen raises (1S-3S is weak). Or is there more than one Cohen and Berkowitz? Ted Ying wrote: > > Likewise, the system and the responses and the inferences exist > when stronger players use the Bergen system. There are many > expert partnerships that use Bergen with a host of expert > inferences and meanings for subsequent bids. One well-known > example are Cohen and Berkowitz. > > -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/ -- Mike Kopera Bridge is so great because it is intellectually challenging and yet totally meaningless. Geoffry Rees - NY Times 04/05/95 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 23 22:28:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NBRr207838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:27:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NBRjH07826 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:27:45 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 30392 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 11:17:13 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.660671 secs); 23 Mar 2002 11:17:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.192) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 11:17:11 -0000 Message-ID: <00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" , References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:13:57 +1200 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: Wayne Burrows ; Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > Partnership understanding and partnership experience are not the same > thing. > > > > Understandings need to be disclosed in advance, experience needs to be > > disclosed when explaining in response to an inquiry. > > Please look up Law 75. The laws do not distinguish between partnership > understanding and partnership experience when it comes to disclosing > agreements to opponents. They are both considered part of partnership > agreements, and as such shall be fully and freely available to opponents. Law 75 most certainly distinguishes between partnership agreement and partnership experience. L75A. Special Partnership Agreements Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and conditions of the current deal. This talks about agreements. L75C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. This talks about agreements and experience. While agreements and understanding (L40) may need to be disclosed in advance. Experience is only required to be disclosed 'when explaining...in reply to an opponent's inquiry'. 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 Mar 23 22:42:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NBgWt09444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:42:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NBgMH09415 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:42:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1686.bb.online.no [80.212.214.150]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA09682 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:31:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002f01c1d25e$52438500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:31:48 +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 > > Please look up Law 75. The laws do not distinguish between partnership > > understanding and partnership experience when it comes to disclosing > > agreements to opponents. They are both considered part of partnership > > agreements, and as such shall be fully and freely available to opponents. > > Law 75 most certainly distinguishes between partnership agreement and > partnership experience. > > L75A. Special Partnership Agreements > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully > and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to > partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and > conditions of the current deal. > > This talks about agreements. And what do you believe is covered by the term "implicit" in this 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 Sat Mar 23 22:54:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NBrpb10598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:53:51 +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 g2NBrhH10586 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:53:43 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 7746 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 11:43:11 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 2.461249 secs); 23 Mar 2002 11:43:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.192) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 11:43:08 -0000 Message-ID: <00dd01c1d25f$757ae940$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008401c1d1fe$9118bb20$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001101c1d203$565aa340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00ad01c1d210$a28ace40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <003101c1d21a$66f06de0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:39:55 +1200 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: Wayne Burrows ; Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 3:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > I do not see that occasional violations necessarily create a partnership > > agreement that needs to be disclosed. > > You better be careful at the table. If the "occational violations" are > occational enough for you to be mentally prepared for the possibility > then you have established a partnership experience as part of your > partnership agreements. > Where does this notion come from it is not what I read in the laws. You ask me to read L75 in another post - perhaps you should. Habitual violations may create agreements. That means that even habitual violations do not necessarily create agreements. Given this clear statement in law then occasion violations necessarily are less likely to create even implicit agreements. > If there is the slightest doubt that you was mentally prepared for a > particular > violation of agreements from partner, based upon your experience from maybe > long time ago, and your actions bear indications of this condition, you will > most certainly find yourself in trouble if you meet a competent Director > unless you have shared this experience to opponents without being asked. This is dogma not written in the laws. Violation of agreements are protected in law (L40). The only requirement is that those violations are not based on a partnership understanding. L40A states that I don't have to make a 'prior announcement' regarding a psychic bid unless that call is based on a partnership understanding. L75C states that some habitual violations may create implicit agreements. On this basis I think it is too far to leap from occasional violations create understandings that must be disclosed without being asked. In summary my understanding from reading the laws: agreements or understanding - fully and freely available experience - needs only be given only in response to a question. In addition L75B allows a violation 'so long as his partner is unaware of the violation'. This is quite a different thing than 'unaware of a possible violation'. This should be plain. I am aware that any call my partner makes could be a violation since that is a legal strategy - protected in L40 and L75. I am not ever aware that a particular call is a violation - which is what L75B requires to make the violation illegal. > > > > > Of course, experience of violations, whether or not they are, or have > > become, part of your agreements need to be disclosed in response to a > > question. e.g. 1s shows 12-20 with 5 spades, in 3rd chair a psyche is > > possible. The later need not be disclosed if it is an inference drawn > from > > 'general bridge knowledge'. > > > > I need to disclose "...all special information ... through partnership > > agreement or partnership experience ... but not ... general knowledge..." > > L75C. > > If your "general knowledge" goes with any partner - accepted. If it goes > with this particular partner - No, then it is no longer general knowledge. > I don't accept that. It can be general knowledge that many players open light in third seat. Therefore I am generally aware of that possibility after a 3rd seat opening. 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 Mar 23 23:04:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NC4Bk11747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:04:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NC43H11736 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:04:04 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 11553 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 11:53:31 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.61145 secs); 23 Mar 2002 11:53:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.192) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 11:53:29 -0000 Message-ID: <00e301c1d260$e7d0d1c0$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" , References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002f01c1d25e$52438500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:50:16 +1200 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: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > Please look up Law 75. The laws do not distinguish between partnership > > > understanding and partnership experience when it comes to disclosing > > > agreements to opponents. They are both considered part of partnership > > > agreements, and as such shall be fully and freely available to > opponents. > > > > Law 75 most certainly distinguishes between partnership agreement and > > partnership experience. > > > > L75A. Special Partnership Agreements > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be > fully > > and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed > to > > partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and > > conditions of the current deal. > > > > This talks about agreements. > > And what do you believe is covered by the term "implicit" in this law? > There is a big clue in the statement - 'habitual violations within a partnership may create implicit agreements' L75B I believe implicit are those created by such habitual violations. Although it is clear, through the use of 'may', from the law that a habitual violation does not necessarily create such an agreement. I also believe in a wider sense implicit agreements include any agreements that you have that you have not explicitly discussed. Note "implicit" is not used on its own. Something must be an agreement before it can be categorized as an implicit or an explicit agreement. Anything that is not an agreement is necessarily not an implicit agreement and it can never be. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 00:30:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NDU4Y20396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:30:04 +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 g2NDTtH20383 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:29:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1489.bb.online.no [80.212.213.209]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA19710 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:19:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000901c1d26d$57c9dd80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008401c1d1fe$9118bb20$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001101c1d203$565aa340$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00ad01c1d210$a28ace40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <003101c1d21a$66f06de0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00dd01c1d25f$757ae940$ec16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:19:20 +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 > > > I need to disclose "...all special information ... through partnership > > > agreement or partnership experience ... but not ... general > knowledge..." > > > L75C. > > > > If your "general knowledge" goes with any partner - accepted. If it goes > > with this particular partner - No, then it is no longer general knowledge. > > > > I don't accept that. It can be general knowledge that many players open > light in third seat. Therefore I am generally aware of that possibility > after a 3rd seat opening. OK, then let me put it this way: If your "general knowledge" is of a nature you would apply versus a random partner with whom you had no previous experience, then it is OK If your "general knowledge" is somehow based upon your experience with, or knowledge of that particular partner, then you cannot "hide behind" a claim that this is "general knowledge". "General knowledge" must be independent upon the partner, if not it is part of partnership experience or understanding. 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 Mar 24 00:43:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NDh8T21687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:43:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NDgxH21667 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:43:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1489.bb.online.no [80.212.213.209]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA14676 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:32:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001101c1d26f$2b417f00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002f01c1d25e$52438500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00e301c1d260$e7d0d1c0$ec16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:32:24 +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 > > > L75A. Special Partnership Agreements > > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be > > fully > > > and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed > > to > > > partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and > > > conditions of the current deal. > > > > > > This talks about agreements. > > > > And what do you believe is covered by the term "implicit" in this law? > > > > There is a big clue in the statement - 'habitual violations within a > partnership may create implicit agreements' L75B > > I believe implicit are those created by such habitual violations. Although > it is clear, through the use of 'may', from the law that a habitual > violation does not necessarily create such an agreement. Yes, you are on the right track. But you should be aware that the threshold from the word "may" here is very low. Once you from your experience with your partner *may* have reasons to expect that he in a particular situation could practice a certain deviation from explicit agreements, such deviations fall within the terms "habitual violations" and "implicit agreements". Another way of deciding this question is to ask yourself the question: Is it at least a bit likely that partner will expect me to be aware that this could be a violation of our expressed agreements? Unless you have a definite "No!" answer to this question you probably have an implicit partnership understanding (i.e. agreement). > > I also believe in a wider sense implicit agreements include any agreements > that you have that you have not explicitly discussed. Of course they do. > > Note "implicit" is not used on its own. Something must be an agreement > before it can be categorized as an implicit or an explicit agreement. > Anything that is not an agreement is necessarily not an implicit agreement > and it can never be. No, but it can be an implicit agreement without ever having been discussed between you. 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 Mar 24 01:11:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NEArj24683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:10:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NEAdH24655 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:10:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.148]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTF00E3YIVWF8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:00:02 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:57:34 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: israel margulies , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000f01c1d272$da983f40$945f003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum> <00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002f01c1d25e$52438500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00e301c1d260$e7d0d1c0$ec16b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Habitual violations c r e a t e implicit agreements. Come come Wayne the laws are not God's words ,there are mny mxre serious mistakes than putting an unnecessary word. Regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" ; Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sven Pran > To: > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:31 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > > > Please look up Law 75. The laws do not distinguish between partnership > > > > understanding and partnership experience when it comes to disclosing > > > > agreements to opponents. They are both considered part of partnership > > > > agreements, and as such shall be fully and freely available to > > opponents. > > > > > > Law 75 most certainly distinguishes between partnership agreement and > > > partnership experience. > > > > > > L75A. Special Partnership Agreements > > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be > > fully > > > and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed > > to > > > partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and > > > conditions of the current deal. > > > > > > This talks about agreements. > > > > And what do you believe is covered by the term "implicit" in this law? > > > > There is a big clue in the statement - 'habitual violations within a > partnership may create implicit agreements' L75B > > I believe implicit are those created by such habitual violations. Although > it is clear, through the use of 'may', from the law that a habitual > violation does not necessarily create such an agreement. > > I also believe in a wider sense implicit agreements include any agreements > that you have that you have not explicitly discussed. > > Note "implicit" is not used on its own. Something must be an agreement > before it can be categorized as an implicit or an explicit agreement. > Anything that is not an agreement is necessarily not an implicit agreement > and it can never be. > > Wayne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 01:11:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NEAnj24673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:10:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NEAaH24648 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:10:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.148]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTF00E3YIVWF8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:59:59 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:47:41 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000e01c1d272$d8f4a160$945f003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum> <00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002f01c1d25e$52438500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00e301c1d260$e7d0d1c0$ec16b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" ; Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sven Pran > To: > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:31 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > > > Please look up Law 75. The laws do not distinguish between partnership > > > > understanding and partnership experience when it comes to disclosing > > > > agreements to opponents. They are both considered part of partnership > > > > agreements, and as such shall be fully and freely available to > > opponents. > > > > > > Law 75 most certainly distinguishes between partnership agreement and > > > partnership experience. > > > > > > L75A. Special Partnership Agreements > > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be > > fully > > > and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed > > to > > > partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and > > > conditions of the current deal. > > > > > > This talks about agreements. > > > > And what do you believe is covered by the term "implicit" in this law? > > > > There is a big clue in the statement - 'habitual violations within a > partnership may create implicit agreements' L75B > > I believe implicit are those created by such habitual violations. Although > it is clear, through the use of 'may', from the law that a habitual > violation does not necessarily create such an agreement. > > I also believe in a wider sense implicit agreements include any agreements > that you have that you have not explicitly discussed. > > Note "implicit" is not used on its own. Something must be an agreement > before it can be categorized as an implicit or an explicit agreement. > Anything that is not an agreement is necessarily not an implicit agreement > and it can never be. > > Wayne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 01:26:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NEQJN26402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:26:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NEQAH26382 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:26:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.148]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTF00EBFJLVH4@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:15:34 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:14:17 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <002c01c1d275$06285e40$945f003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum> <00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wel I admitteed I am not good at defining[much better at understanding, I hope] they are not related at all therefore as partner is concerned to be a psyche it must be a s u r p i s e to partner. I've seen this definition in one of the posts [I think Sven's] and adopted it. Hope this point is now clear. Regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" not only To: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Israel Erdnbaum > To: Wayne Burrows > Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > Well I am not so good at defining things so it's enough to say it m u s t > > be a > > s u r p r i s e to partner. > > Where is this surprise written in law? > > I don't see that "surprise" and "based on partnership understanding" have > even closely related meanings. > > Wayne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 01:59:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NEwss29916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:58:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NEwjH29899 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:58:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.75.152]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTF00ED5L47L4@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:48:09 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 16:46:53 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] psychs To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001d01c1d279$938aafa0$984b003e@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: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_2do7LL1WJArlvvmRm40vCg)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_2do7LL1WJArlvvmRm40vCg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Wel I admitteed I am not good at defining[much better at understanding, I hope] they are not related at all therefore as partner is concerned to be a psyche it must be a s u r p i s e to partner. I've seen this definition in one of the posts [I think Sven's] and adopted it. Hope this point is now clear. Regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" not only To: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Israel Erdnbaum > To: Wayne Burrows > Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > Well I am not so good at defining things so it's enough to say it m u s t > > be a > > s u r p r i s e to partner. > > Where is this surprise written in law? > > I don't see that "surprise" and "based on partnership understanding" have > even closely related meanings. > > Wayne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ --Boundary_(ID_2do7LL1WJArlvvmRm40vCg) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Wel I admitteed I am not good at defining[much better at understanding, I
hope] they are not related at all therefore as partner is concerned to be a
psyche it must be a  s u r p i s e  to partner.
I've seen this definition in one of the posts
[I think Sven's] and adopted it.
Hope this point is now clear.
Regards  Israel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Burrows" <cascade@infogen.net.nz>not only To:
<bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:08 AM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Israel Erdnbaum <erdnbaum@netvision.net.il>
> To: Wayne Burrows <cascade@infogen.net.nz>
> Cc: Israel Erdenbaum <erdnbaum@netvision.net.il>;
> <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18
>
>
> > Well I am not so good at defining things so it's enough to say it  m u s
t
> > be a
> > s u r p r i s e   to partner.
>
> Where is this surprise written in law?
>
> I don't see that "surprise" and "based on partnership understanding" have
> even closely related meanings.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> --
> ========================================================================
> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with
> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/


--
========================================================================
(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with
"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/
--Boundary_(ID_2do7LL1WJArlvvmRm40vCg)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 24 06:17:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NJE3L27204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:14:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NJDoH27179 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:13:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2NJ3KA14472 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:03:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:03 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sven wrote: > > I don't see that "surprise" and "based on partnership understanding" > > have > > even closely related meanings. > > No? > So you never get surprised if your partner out of a blue sky makes a > bid contrary to everything you have agreed upon? > > I can understand that you do not get too surprised if your reaction to > partners call could be: "So you made another one of those psyches?". If I sit down with a complete stranger in a decent individual tournament and open 1H, LHO doubles, stranger bids 1S I will not be surprised if he has short spades and long hearts (I might be slightly surprised if he actually has 4+ spades, particularly if I hold 3+ myself). If my wife (and fairly regular partner) bid 1S I would be quite surprised if she didn't have 4S. If Probst bid 1S I would alert unless opps are known to be competent players. Common psyching positions like this are a part of general bridge knowledge. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 06:17:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NJE3e27205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:14:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NJDoH27176 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:13:51 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2NJ3Ir14452 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:03:19 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 19:03 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? 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: <004901c1d1e0$3baf2ca0$314c003e@erdnbaum> Israel asked: > If 8 times out of 10 you know "by the way those answers are given " > that a] he doesn't care,,.... b] he doesn't know...., How can you play > bridge under the standards nowadays required especially" having a > slightly swingy approach" 2 times out 3 it will opponents doing it, and that is AI which I can use to my advantage. I generally play very simple systems so it is rare that my own partners give such ambiguous answers. My regular partners are all aware that I will usually read any UI correctly and take the steps necessary to avoid taking advantage - this makes them try extra hard to minimise the UI they make available. To be honest I don't think the standards have changed much in the 20 years I have been playing. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 06:27:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NJOYa28596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:24:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NJOPH28573 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:24:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2NJDro09072; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:13:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:01:40 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: Adam Beneschan , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200203202354.PAA05250@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <20020323141356-r01010800-65146482-0904-0108@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 3/20/02 at 3:54 PM, adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) wrote: > when a score adjustment is required for an infraction that occurs > during the auction, the score is often based what contract SHOULD have > been reached if the infraction hadn't occurred. So we probably ought > to talk about "changing the contract" instead of "rolling it back". We ought to talk about "adjusting the score". > Of course, we're technically not changing the contract; but since the > score we assign is based on some contract that we think should have > been the final contract, for all practical purposes we *are* changing > the contract. We're not changing the contract, but we are changing the contract? Sorry, no. We're not changing the contract, we're changing the *score*. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 06:59:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NJxAJ02514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:59:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NJx1H02495 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 06:59:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.80.146]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTF00CBEZ0OAS@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:48:26 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:47:08 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <004201c1d2a3$85856a60$9250003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Common psyhing situations are therefore hardly psyches- I assume they are common to the opponents too and so they aren't surprised either. So this is the situations for "as surprised as the opponents" Is bridge really so complicated? Regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > In-Reply-To: <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> > Sven wrote: > > > > I don't see that "surprise" and "based on partnership understanding" > > > have > > > even closely related meanings. > > > > No? > > So you never get surprised if your partner out of a blue sky makes a > > bid contrary to everything you have agreed upon? > > > > I can understand that you do not get too surprised if your reaction to > > partners call could be: "So you made another one of those psyches?". > > If I sit down with a complete stranger in a decent individual tournament > and open 1H, LHO doubles, stranger bids 1S I will not be surprised if he > has short spades and long hearts (I might be slightly surprised if he > actually has 4+ spades, particularly if I hold 3+ myself). If my wife > (and fairly regular partner) bid 1S I would be quite surprised if she > didn't have 4S. If Probst bid 1S I would alert unless opps are known to > be competent players. Common psyching positions like this are a part of > general bridge knowledge. > > 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 Sun Mar 24 07:35:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NKXt206374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:33:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NKXjH06357 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:33:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.101]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTG00C6K0MJKD@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:23:10 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:21:26 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <006501c1d2a8$5f60c280$9250003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum> <00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <00a401c1d260$980bfb60$c94e003e@erdnbaum> <00e901c1d261$1c2a9d20$ec16b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have aquired the computer [monster] a few months ago at the early age of 81 never took a course, one friend tells me from time to time what to do. So I do a lot of things but I really don't know the ABC. besides I'm prone to touch things I should not ,and then all sorts of things happen. This time the "monster" sent it before I had added anything. In another case he sent [even twice] a post which was not even half ready. Sorry, I hope you"ll excuse me. Best regards Israel P.S. For quite a time I've been using the response button and thought it was going to BlMl ,only about aweek ago I was told it wasn't. I am sorry about it because IMnHO there were some interesting things there i.e Law 13. T.S ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Did you add anything? > > Wayne Burrows > 10 Glen Place > Palmerston North > New Zealand > > mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz > > Phone 0064 6 3551259 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Israel Erdnbaum > To: Wayne Burrows > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:47 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > To: > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 4:02 AM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Sven Pran > > > To: > > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:47 PM > > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I am not so good at defining things so it's enough to say it > m > > u > > > s > > > > t > > > > > > be a > > > > > > s u r p r i s e to partner. > > > > > > > > > > Where is this surprise written in law? > > > > > > > > > > I don't see that "surprise" and "based on partnership understanding" > > > have > > > > > even closely related meanings. > > > > > > > > No? > > > > So you never get surprised if your partner out of a blue sky makes a > > > > bid contrary to everything you have agreed upon? > > > > > > Of course I might be surprised. But I might not be surprise and that or > > > rather the bid may not be based on a partnership understanding. > > > > > > > > > > > I can understand that you do not get too surprised if your reaction to > > > > partners call could be: "So you made another one of those psyches?". > > > > > > > > Your experience with partner which made you make such a statement > > > > is in itself a proof of a violation of Law 40A even if it was two > years > > > > since last time he did such a thing - unless you made certain that > > > > opponents were equally alert on that possibility as you could be. > > > > > > Partnership understanding and partnership experience are not the same > > thing. > > > > > > Understandings need to be disclosed in advance, experience needs to be > > > disclosed when explaining in response to an inquiry. > > > > > > > > > > > This is where "surprise" enters the picture, not as a quotation from > the > > > > laws but as a consequence of the laws. > > > > > > > > > > Surprise or rather the lack of it may be based on many things other than > a > > > partnership understanding. Experience, a player's general reputation > (but > > > not part of your partnership experience), general bridge knowledge etc > > etc. > > > > > > My last psyche (and i think i psyche relatively infrequently) was 2s > > showing > > > spades and a minor on something like : > > > > > > 4 > > > 4 > > > qxxxx > > > jxxxxx > > > > > > i remember those 4's. I led one and ruffed with the other > > > > > > In around a year of playing infrequently together I have never made such > > an > > > outrageous call. Nevertheless I believe my partner was less 'surprised' > > > than my opponents. I also would defend to the hilt that we have no > > > partnership understanding that needs to be disclosed to any opponents. > > > > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ======================================================================== > > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 07:38:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NKciu06917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:38:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NKcZH06899 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:38:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.101]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTG00FIA0UKV4@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:27:58 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:26:42 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <006c01c1d2a9$0cb0bda0$9250003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Was there total disclosure 20 years ago ? Were you forbidden to forget 20 years ago? Cheers Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 9:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? > In-Reply-To: <004901c1d1e0$3baf2ca0$314c003e@erdnbaum> > Israel asked: > > If 8 times out of 10 you know "by the way those answers are given " > > that a] he doesn't care,,.... b] he doesn't know...., How can you play > > bridge under the standards nowadays required especially" having a > > slightly swingy approach" > > 2 times out 3 it will opponents doing it, and that is AI which I can use > to my advantage. I generally play very simple systems so it is rare that > my own partners give such ambiguous answers. My regular partners are all > aware that I will usually read any UI correctly and take the steps > necessary to avoid taking advantage - this makes them try extra hard to > minimise the UI they make available. To be honest I don't think the > standards have changed much in the 20 years I have been playing. > > 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 Sun Mar 24 07:45:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NKjcb07674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:45:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NKjTH07658 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:45:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.101]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTG00F1F162YC@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:34:52 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:33:37 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <007b01c1d2aa$0378b480$9250003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008001c1d1fc$8d472ba0$ec16b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk QJxxxx -QJxxxx - x What is the count? Is this a 1S opening bid? Regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 1:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sven Pran > To: Bridge Laws > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:24 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > > I would certainly be willing to argue that some 7 counts were better > than > > a > > > king below average and some 8 counts worse. > > > > Most certainly yes, but when you need some classification rules you use > the > > best available, and that probably happens to be HCP (possibly together > with > > assessment of extra values like long suits or deficiencies like lack of > Aces > > and/or Kings for the HCP) > > My position is: > > If the law says a 'king below' then i should be allowed to argue that a > particular hand is not 'king below' even if some other judgement/count says > it is. > > Of course the TD or committee don't have to agree but I think it is wrong if > they automatically won't listen to my argument. > > ----------- > By the way I have posted this information before: > > The average suit lengths of your longest suit; 2nd longest; 3rd longest; 4th > longest are > > 4.900773564 3.667007628 2.734530388 1.697688419 > > That means the average length of your two longest suit is > > 8.567781192 > > Therefore if a 'Rule of 18' type rule is your panacea for ranking hand > strength then an average hand is 18.567781192 and a king below is > 15.567781192 so 'rule of 15' is ok but 'rule of 16' is not. > > Notice also that 'rule of 18' is nearly average. > > My point above is that if you use this judgement that that does not prevent > me arguing that a particular hand is better or worse than the count 'rule of > 15' (or any other rule). > > Wayne > > Wayne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 24 07:47:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NKlTB07889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:47:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NKlKH07873 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:47:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2804.bb.online.no [80.212.218.244]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA05263 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:36:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <007201c1d2aa$725daea0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" Cc: References: <006c01c1d2a9$0cb0bda0$9250003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:36:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > Was there total disclosure 20 years ago ? Yes > Were you forbidden to forget 20 years ago? No, but if you had forgotten and opponents were damaged. score was adjusted (as is the rule today) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 07:57:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NKvNo08932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:57:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout2.netvision.net.il (mxout2.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NKvDH08914 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 07:57:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.172]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTG00CFW1POLP@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:46:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:44:37 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <009601c1d2ab$a6fb1d40$9250003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum> <00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Do you think an average bridge playing person has ever heard about the things you are talking about. Or that he/she would understand what you are talking about? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" ; Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sven Pran > To: Wayne Burrows ; > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 3:07 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > > > > Partnership understanding and partnership experience are not the same > > thing. > > > > > > Understandings need to be disclosed in advance, experience needs to be > > > disclosed when explaining in response to an inquiry. > > > > Please look up Law 75. The laws do not distinguish between partnership > > understanding and partnership experience when it comes to disclosing > > agreements to opponents. They are both considered part of partnership > > agreements, and as such shall be fully and freely available to opponents. > > Law 75 most certainly distinguishes between partnership agreement and > partnership experience. > > L75A. Special Partnership Agreements > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully > and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information conveyed to > partner through such agreements must arise from the calls, plays and > conditions of the current deal. > > This talks about agreements. > > L75C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements > When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an > opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special > information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership > experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general > knowledge and experience. > > This talks about agreements and experience. > > While agreements and understanding (L40) may need to be disclosed in > advance. Experience is only required to be disclosed 'when explaining...in > reply to an opponent's inquiry'. > > Wayne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 08:00:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NL0dw09300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:00:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NL0TH09286 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:00:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2804.bb.online.no [80.212.218.244]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA08051 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:49:54 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <007a01c1d2ac$492d54c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008001c1d1fc$8d472ba0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <007b01c1d2aa$0378b480$9250003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:49:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > QJxxxx -QJxxxx - x What is the count? > Is this a 1S opening bid? I am using a system where this qualifies for an opening bid of 2M. (Showing at least 5cards in the major suit plus another suit - major or minor - with at least 4 cards, strength below normal opening). Here I would open 2S. A conventional opening bid going along with multi 2D and 2NT (showing both minors) which has proven merits. 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 Mar 24 08:10:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NLAY710306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:10:34 +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 g2NLAOH10288 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:10:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2NKxsp18574 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:59:54 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:59 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <000f01c1d272$da983f40$945f003e@erdnbaum> Israel wrote: > Habitual violations c r e a t e implicit agreements. Come come Wayne > the laws are not God's words ,there are mny mxre serious mistakes than > putting an unnecessary word. The word "may" is far from unnecessary. Habitual violations create an awareness (which may be disclosable). They cannot possibly create *agreements*. I know for certain that some players are aware of my habitual violations to the extent that they have begged me not to - and will complain vociferously when I continue to do so. To say that I have an agreement with these players would change the meaning of the word beyond all recognition. But all this is a pointless waste of time. If SO's want prior disclosure of psychic tendencies/likelihoods they can demand it and I believe all those who ever psyche would happily comply. And until they do make it clear nobody will ever agree exactly how such things 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 Sun Mar 24 08:40:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NLeAt13613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:40:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NLe0H13587 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:40:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.36]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTG00GHZ3OY4A@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:29:24 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:28:08 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? To: Sven Pran Cc: israel margulies , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <012c01c1d2b1$a16b6960$9250003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <006c01c1d2a9$0cb0bda0$9250003e@erdnbaum> <007201c1d2aa$725daea0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maybe I am mistaken but I thought total disclosure was something started by Wolff and certainly not 20 years ago. If I am mistaken I stand corrected. Were you punished for forgetting ?.I sure hope you would be for spitting on the table Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is Bergen a ... bargain? > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > Was there total disclosure 20 years ago ? > > Yes > > > Were you forbidden to forget 20 years ago? > > No, but if you had forgotten and opponents were > damaged. score was adjusted (as is the rule today) > > 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 Sun Mar 24 08:48:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NLmYb14592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:48:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NLmPH14573 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:48:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.36]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTG00GLT42Z41@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:37:48 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 23:36:33 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <013d01c1d2b2$ce386aa0$9250003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008001c1d1fc$8d472ba0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <007b01c1d2aa$0378b480$9250003e@erdnbaum> <007a01c1d2ac$492d54c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks,but sorry you disregarded my questions, and there is a reason for asking them. So ,what is the count ? And is this a legal 1S opening bid? Thanks again Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > QJxxxx -QJxxxx - x What is the count? > > Is this a 1S opening bid? > > I am using a system where this qualifies for an > opening bid of 2M. (Showing at least 5cards > in the major suit plus another suit - major or > minor - with at least 4 cards, strength below > normal opening). Here I would open 2S. > > A conventional opening bid going along with > multi 2D and 2NT (showing both minors) which > has proven merits. > > 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 Sun Mar 24 09:06:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NM5qE16461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:05:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NM5hH16442 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:05:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2804.bb.online.no [80.212.218.244]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA13241 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:55:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <009c01c1d2b5$655705c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008001c1d1fc$8d472ba0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <007b01c1d2aa$0378b480$9250003e@erdnbaum> <007a01c1d2ac$492d54c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <013d01c1d2b2$ce386aa0$9250003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:55:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > Thanks,but sorry you disregarded my > questions, and there is a reason for asking them. So ,what is the count ? 6 (with the 4-3-2-1 scale). In case you wonder I do not count distributional points, at least not with the same weight as ordinary HCP, on the "declarers" hand. Far too often that means counting the same values twice. > And is this > a legal 1S opening bid? As TD I would admit it because the hand has a great potential with 6 cards in both majors and only 5 direct losers. And if partner is blank then a 1S opening is tactically very sound. (And my 2S opening is even more sound, partner will not pass that one out with a reasonable fit and/or strength) regards Sven > Thanks again > Israel > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:49 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > > > QJxxxx -QJxxxx - x What is the count? > > > Is this a 1S opening bid? > > > > I am using a system where this qualifies for an > > opening bid of 2M. (Showing at least 5cards > > in the major suit plus another suit - major or > > minor - with at least 4 cards, strength below > > normal opening). Here I would open 2S. > > > > A conventional opening bid going along with > > multi 2D and 2NT (showing both minors) which > > has proven merits. > > > > 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 Mar 24 09:35:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NMYio19690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:34:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2NMYbH19678 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:34:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 9007 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 22:24:03 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.954051 secs); 23 Mar 2002 22:24:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.206) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 22:24:02 -0000 Message-ID: <013c01c1d2b8$fc718cc0$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" , References: <004201c1d2a3$85856a60$9250003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:20:46 +1200 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: Israel Erdnbaum To: Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Common psyhing situations are therefore hardly psyches- I assume they are > common to the opponents too and so they aren't surprised either. So this is > the situations for "as surprised as the opponents" Is bridge really so > complicated? If it is not a psyche then it may be a conventional opening and therefore subject to system restrictions. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 09:43:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NMgZm20508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:42:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NMgRH20494 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:42:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 11902 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 22:31:49 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.004382 secs); 23 Mar 2002 22:31:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.206) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 22:31:48 -0000 Message-ID: <015401c1d2ba$11ffa080$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008001c1d1fc$8d472ba0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <007b01c1d2aa$0378b480$9250003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:28:33 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi ----- Original Message ----- From: Israel Erdnbaum To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > QJxxxx -QJxxxx - x What is the count? > Is this a 1S opening bid? > Regards > Israel I don't care what the count is but I defend your right to judge and to subsequently argue that this hand is above average (or below average). I am not saying that I will be convinced by your judgement. This hand is well below average in terms of honour strength but extreme in terms of distribution. So it is a hand that some might argue about. Whether or not it is a 1s opener is dependent on partnership style and agreement. If I play Roth-Stone this is not sound enough. If I play 8-12pts and 5+ spades i might judge this hand is good enough. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 09:43:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NMgmi20534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:42:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NMgcH20519 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:42:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.200]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTG00DE36LC18@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:32:02 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:30:44 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000e01c1d2ba$60733ec0$c84c003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Should it be disclosable IMHO NO. According to present standards [bridge for saints] IMHO yes. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > In-Reply-To: <000f01c1d272$da983f40$945f003e@erdnbaum> > Israel wrote: > > > Habitual violations c r e a t e implicit agreements. Come come Wayne > > the laws are not God's words ,there are mny mxre serious mistakes than > > putting an unnecessary word. > > The word "may" is far from unnecessary. Habitual violations create an > awareness (which may be disclosable). They cannot possibly create > *agreements*. I know for certain that some players are aware of my > habitual violations to the extent that they have begged me not to - and > will complain vociferously when I continue to do so. To say that I have > an agreement with these players would change the meaning of the word > beyond all recognition. > > But all this is a pointless waste of time. If SO's want prior disclosure > of psychic tendencies/likelihoods they can demand it and I believe all > those who ever psyche would happily comply. And until they do make it > clear nobody will ever agree exactly how such things 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 24 09:55:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NMtY321991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:55:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NMtRH21980 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:55:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 17210 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 22:44:54 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.657663 secs); 23 Mar 2002 22:44:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.206) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 22:44:52 -0000 Message-ID: <016401c1d2bb$e555b040$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Sven Pran" , References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002f01c1d25e$52438500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00e301c1d260$e7d0d1c0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001101c1d26f$2b417f00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:41:36 +1200 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: Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > I believe implicit are those created by such habitual violations. > Although > > it is clear, through the use of 'may', from the law that a habitual > > violation does not necessarily create such an agreement. > > Yes, you are on the right track. But you should be aware that the threshold > from the word "may" here is very low. Once you from your experience with > your partner *may* have reasons to expect that he in a particular situation > could practice a certain deviation from explicit agreements, such deviations > fall within the terms "habitual violations" and "implicit agreements". I don't see this written in the law. > > Another way of deciding this question is to ask yourself the question: Is it > at least a bit likely that partner will expect me to be aware that this > could > be a violation of our expressed agreements? Read L75B Partner is allowed to be a aware that this 'could be a violation'. Partner is not allowed to be aware "of the violation". The difference in these statements is fundamental. One uses the definite article - the law is referring to a particular violation. Whilst the other - your arguement is referring to a general tendancy. I am often aware that my partner's bid could be a psyche but I do not recall a time when I was aware that a particular bid was a psyche at the time the bid was made. It is this latter situation that is outlawed by L75B. That is Partner must be aware of the (this particular) violation. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 09:58:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NMvpk22239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:57:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NMviH22226 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:57:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 18137 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 22:47:11 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.181882 secs); 23 Mar 2002 22:47:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.206) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 22:47:09 -0000 Message-ID: <016501c1d2bc$3736afe0$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop><004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum><008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb><00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb><00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002f01c1d25e$52438500$6700a8c0@nwtyb><00e301c1d260$e7d0d1c0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <000f01c1d272$da983f40$945f003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:43:53 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi ----- Original Message ----- From: Israel Erdnbaum To: Wayne Burrows Cc: israel margulies ; Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Habitual violations c r e a t e implicit agreements. Come come Wayne the > laws are not God's words ,there are mny mxre serious mistakes than putting > an unnecessary word. > Regards Israel I do not agree with the necessity of your conclusion. If there is no agreement regarding the violation then even a habitual violation can not create any form of agreement. L75B is much stronger in its determination of whether a violation is illegal. For a violation to be illegal partner must be aware of 'the violation'. Not partner must be aware of the possibility of 'a violation'. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 10:03:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NN2mo22834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:02:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NN2eH22818 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:02:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20031 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 22:52:06 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.181696 secs); 23 Mar 2002 22:52:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.206) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 22:52:05 -0000 Message-ID: <018301c1d2bc$e76009c0$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Israel Erdenbaum" , References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum><00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop><004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum><008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb><00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb><00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> <009601c1d2ab$a6fb1d40$9250003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:48:49 +1200 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: Israel Erdnbaum To: Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Do you think an average bridge playing person has ever heard about the > things you are talking about. Or that he/she would > understand what you are talking about? I am quoting the laws. I hope the average bridge player has heard of those or at least knows that there are laws to this game. Nevertheless I am discussing this in a forum concerned with those laws. I am concerned that those that make pronouncements on those laws from time to time and make regulations based upon them and particularly regarding the matter under present discussion IMO often have disregard for what those laws plainly state. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 10:06:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NN6HO23224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:06:17 +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 g2NN6AH23211 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:06:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 21651 invoked by uid 504); 23 Mar 2002 22:55:37 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.178026 secs); 23 Mar 2002 22:55:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.206) by 0 with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 22:55:35 -0000 Message-ID: <019101c1d2bd$64bacc20$ec16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:52:20 +1200 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: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > In-Reply-To: <000f01c1d272$da983f40$945f003e@erdnbaum> > Israel wrote: > > > Habitual violations c r e a t e implicit agreements. Come come Wayne > > the laws are not God's words ,there are mny mxre serious mistakes than > > putting an unnecessary word. > > The word "may" is far from unnecessary. Habitual violations create an > awareness (which may be disclosable). They cannot possibly create > *agreements*. I know for certain that some players are aware of my > habitual violations to the extent that they have begged me not to - and > will complain vociferously when I continue to do so. To say that I have > an agreement with these players would change the meaning of the word > beyond all recognition. Absolutely. Do we have some of the same partners :-) > > But all this is a pointless waste of time. If SO's want prior disclosure > of psychic tendencies/likelihoods they can demand it and I believe all > those who ever psyche would happily comply. And until they do make it > clear nobody will ever agree exactly how such things should be disclosed. Convention cards have in the past and some may still have a place to describe psyching tendancies. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 10:13:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NNDR324027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:13:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2NNDHH23997 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:13:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.222]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTG00GBK80DFC@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:02:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:00:54 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <001d01c1d2be$a87d7ce0$c84c003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008001c1d1fc$8d472ba0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <007b01c1d2aa$0378b480$9250003e@erdnbaum> <007a01c1d2ac$492d54c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <013d01c1d2b2$ce386aa0$9250003e@erdnbaum> <009c01c1d2b5$655705c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't count distributional points either but what about 6 HCP +6+6 don't they add up to 18, but then it's late in the night and I am not sure about the rule of 18. Is a tactically sound bid a legal bid? I am not interested in starting a discussion what do you bid with this hand ? But at the moment I can't articulate exactly what I want to say,so for the meantime I"ll leave it. Somehow I am afraid you won't find many people that will agree with you that as TD you can allow this as a 1S opening bid. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" Cc: ,, Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 11:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > Thanks,but sorry you disregarded my > > questions, and there is a reason for asking them. So ,what is the count ? > > 6 (with the 4-3-2-1 scale). In case you wonder I do not count > distributional points, at least not with the same weight as > ordinary HCP, on the "declarers" hand. Far too often that means > counting the same values twice. > > > And is this > > a legal 1S opening bid? > > As TD I would admit it because the hand has a great potential > with 6 cards in both majors and only 5 direct losers. And if > partner is blank then a 1S opening is tactically very sound. > > (And my 2S opening is even more sound, partner will not > pass that one out with a reasonable fit and/or strength) > > regards Sven > > > Thanks again > > Israel > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Cc: > > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:49 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > > > > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > > > > > QJxxxx -QJxxxx - x What is the count? > > > > Is this a 1S opening bid? > > > > > > I am using a system where this qualifies for an > > > opening bid of 2M. (Showing at least 5cards > > > in the major suit plus another suit - major or > > > minor - with at least 4 cards, strength below > > > normal opening). Here I would open 2S. > > > > > > A conventional opening bid going along with > > > multi 2D and 2NT (showing both minors) which > > > has proven merits. > > > > > > 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 Sun Mar 24 10:53:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2NNqgU28716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:52:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2NNqWH28698 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:52:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3495.bb.online.no [80.212.221.167]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA06203; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:41:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <012c01c1d2c4$4c9d8860$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" , References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <008001c1d1fc$8d472ba0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <007b01c1d2aa$0378b480$9250003e@erdnbaum> <007a01c1d2ac$492d54c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <013d01c1d2b2$ce386aa0$9250003e@erdnbaum> <009c01c1d2b5$655705c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001d01c1d2be$a87d7ce0$c84c003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:41:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > I don't count distributional points either but what about 6 HCP +6+6 don't > they add up to 18, but then it's late in the night and I am not sure about > the rule of 18. It sure does. > Is a tactically sound bid a legal bid? That depends upon the local regulations, but here in Norway I think we generally say yes (unless the bid directly qualifies for a brown sticker or a HUM classification). Some freak hands are of a nature which do not fit any bidding system. Then sometimes we just say: Forget systems and agreements, and use your common sense. Many years ago in a Swiss teams of 4 event where I was TD the dealer took up the following hand: AQx - void - void - AKQJT98642, (I don't remember the zones). What should he bid? The only successful opening bid proved to be 6C, those who begamn with for instance 1C or 2C pretty soon found themselves defending against 7H doubled for an average loss of about 6 IMPS. The 6C openers had a fair chance of playing that contract. (Partner showed up with among other cards the SJ, AD, C7 and C5. The SK was with LHO so there was no way to avoid giving away a spade trick for 12 tricks won. But you will not find any system or regulation telling you how to bid or not to bid that hand, it is simply too extreme. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 19:06:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2O85Km20495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:05:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2O85BH20473 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:05:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-151-121-24-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-121-24-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.24] (may be forged)) by ptialaska.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g2O7sdf01990 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:54:39 -0900 (AKST) Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:55:09 -0900 (Alaskan Standard Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <001d01c1d2be$a87d7ce0$c84c003e@erdnbaum> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: mschmahl@ptialaska.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Top postings rearranged to make things readable.] > > > > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > > > QJxxxx -QJxxxx - x What is the count? > > > > > Is this a 1S opening bid? > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > > I am using a system where this qualifies for an opening bid of 2M. > > > > (Showing at least 5cards in the major suit plus another suit - > > > > major or minor - with at least 4 cards, strength below normal > > > > opening). Here I would open 2S. > > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > Thanks,but sorry you disregarded my questions, and there is a reason > > > for asking them. So ,what is the count And is this a legal 1S > > > opening bid? > From: "Sven Pran" > > 6 (with the 4-3-2-1 scale). In case you wonder I do not count > > distributional points, at least not with the same weight as ordinary > > HCP, on the "declarers" hand. Far too often that means counting the > > same values twice. On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > I don't count distributional points either but what about 6 HCP +6+6 > don't they add up to 18, but then it's late in the night and I am not > sure about the rule of 18. Is a tactically sound bid a legal bid? I am > not interested in starting a discussion what do you bid with this hand? > But at the moment I can't articulate exactly what I want to say,so for > the meantime I"ll leave it. Somehow I am afraid you won't find many > people that will agree with you that as TD you can allow this as a 1S > opening bid. I think you've missed the context and the reason for asking, Sven, so I'll make an attempt at answering. Under the given regulation that started this thread, it is a legal 1S bid, if it is intended as a psyche. It falls within "rule-of-18", i.e. 6+6+6<=18. In a natural system, where a 1S opening shows something like a normal range, and one's bridge judgement says that this is a good enough hand to open 1S, then that is also legal. I think only a very novice player would consider this a "normal" 1S opening, but a good bridge player might open 1S anyway for its tactical/psychic value. If you play an aggressive system, where opening bids are often light and distributional, and this hand fits the system, or is only a devation rather than a psyche, then the 1S may or may not be legal, depending on what regulations on natural bids are in force. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear comments on the legality of the regulation that started this thread, and to hear why WBF hasn't done something about it. -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 20:10:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2O9AAs27211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:10:10 +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 g2O9A0H27193 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:10:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48825.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.185]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2O8xOM21868 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 09:59:24 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C9D959B.4080405@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:00:11 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: > [Top postings deleted] > > I think you've missed the context and the reason for asking, Sven, so I'll > make an attempt at answering. Under the given regulation that started > this thread, it is a legal 1S bid, if it is intended as a psyche. It > falls within "rule-of-18", i.e. 6+6+6<=18. > No Michael, totally wrong. If it is intended as a psyche, I will tell the person doing it that I don't regard it as a psyche, and that I would rule against him if it had not conformed to the rule of 18 (ie opening without that jack of hearts). If it is intended as a genuine opening bid, I would do nothing. It conforms to the rule of 18 so it is not prifa facie evidence that this pair are playing HUM. > In a natural system, where a 1S opening shows something like a normal > range, and one's bridge judgement says that this is a good enough hand to > open 1S, then that is also legal. I think only a very novice player would > consider this a "normal" 1S opening, but a good bridge player might open > 1S anyway for its tactical/psychic value. > > If you play an aggressive system, where opening bids are often light and > distributional, and this hand fits the system, or is only a devation > rather than a psyche, then the 1S may or may not be legal, depending on > what regulations on natural bids are in force. > > BTW, I'm still waiting to hear comments on the legality of the regulation > that started this thread, and to hear why WBF hasn't done something about > 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 Sun Mar 24 20:47:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2O9ks700853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:46:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2O9kiH00839 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:46:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3566.bb.online.no [80.212.221.238]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA21490 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:36:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002501c1d317$53b0f8a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3C9D959B.4080405@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:36:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > No Michael, totally wrong. > > If it is intended as a psyche, I will tell the person doing it that I > don't regard it as a psyche, and that I would rule against him if it > had not conformed to the rule of 18 (ie opening without that jack of > hearts). > > If it is intended as a genuine opening bid, I would do nothing. > It conforms to the rule of 18 so it is not prifa facie evidence that > this pair are playing HUM. > Regulations are fine, but they have to be used with some caution. The hand: AKJxxxx/xx/xx/xx does not satisfy the rule of 18. It is only a Queen below average HCP. According to most systems it is a genuine opening bid(weak or pre-empt) of 2 or 3 spades (or multi 2D). But if a player decided to try a 1S opening bid I would as TD in Norway not dream of taking any action against him (provided of course that there was no "private understanding" involved). Even with a valueless dummy this hand has great chances of making 7 tricks, and with a little values in dummy we could even be very close to game. We must not forget in all this discussion of valid and invalid bids that a player has the right to take a chance, and to "live or die" with 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 Sun Mar 24 20:58:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2O9we702118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:58:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2O9wUH02101 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 20:58:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3566.bb.online.no [80.212.221.238]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA17168 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:47:54 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002e01c1d318$f8925520$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3C9D959B.4080405@village.uunet.be> <002501c1d317$53b0f8a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 10:47:54 +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: "Sven Pran" > From: "Herman De Wael" > > No Michael, totally wrong. > > > > If it is intended as a psyche, I will tell the person doing it that I > > don't regard it as a psyche, and that I would rule against him if it > > had not conformed to the rule of 18 (ie opening without that jack of > > hearts). > > > > If it is intended as a genuine opening bid, I would do nothing. > > It conforms to the rule of 18 so it is not prifa facie evidence that > > this pair are playing HUM. > > > > Regulations are fine, but they have to be used with some caution. > > The hand: AKJxxxx/xx/xx/xx does not satisfy the rule of 18. It > is only a Queen below average HCP. According to most systems > it is a genuine opening bid(weak or pre-empt) of 2 or 3 spades > (or multi 2D). > > But if a player decided to try a 1S opening bid I would as TD in > Norway not dream of taking any action against him (provided of > course that there was no "private understanding" involved). > > Even with a valueless dummy this hand has great chances of > making 7 tricks, and with a little values in dummy we could even > be very close to game. > > We must not forget in all this discussion of valid and invalid bids > that a player has the right to take a chance, and to "live or die" > with it. > > Sven And after posting that I got to think of an even more extreme hand illustrating the same point: KQJT987654/2/2/2 6HCP, 17 points for the rule of 18 Any sensible player would open directly in 4S, but should 1S be 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 Sun Mar 24 22:13:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2OBAxe09790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:10:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2OB8mH09546 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:09:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-151-121-28-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-121-28-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.28] (may be forged)) by ptialaska.net (8.10.2+Sun/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g2OAvqf01156; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:57:53 -0900 (AKST) Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 01:58:21 -0900 (Alaskan Standard Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Herman De Wael cc: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <3C9D959B.4080405@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: X-X-Sender: mschmahl@ptialaska.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Herman De Wael wrote: > Michael Schmahl wrote: > > > [Top postings deleted] > > > > I think you've missed the context and the reason for asking, Sven, so I'll > > make an attempt at answering. Under the given regulation that started > > this thread, it is a legal 1S bid, if it is intended as a psyche. It > > falls within "rule-of-18", i.e. 6+6+6<=18. > > > > > No Michael, totally wrong. > > If it is intended as a psyche, I will tell the person doing it that I > don't regard it as a psyche, and that I would rule against him if it > had not conformed to the rule of 18 (ie opening without that jack of > hearts). > > If it is intended as a genuine opening bid, I would do nothing. > It conforms to the rule of 18 so it is not prifa facie evidence that > this pair are playing HUM. > Under Austrian regulations or Belgian regulations? -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 24 22:35:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2OBXZn12100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:33:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2OBXOH12076 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:33:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48825.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.185]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2OBMKM29520 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:22:20 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C9DB71A.6070703@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:23:06 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Schmahl wrote: >> >>If it is intended as a genuine opening bid, I would do nothing. >>It conforms to the rule of 18 so it is not prifa facie evidence that >>this pair are playing HUM. >> >> > > Under Austrian regulations or Belgian regulations? > Under either, if the regulations define weak openings as not conforming to the rule of 18. > -- 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 Mar 24 22:47:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2OBk9n13406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:46:09 +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 g2OBboH12568 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:37:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48825.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.185]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2OBQkM03632 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:26:46 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C9DB824.4000106@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:27:32 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <3C9D959B.4080405@village.uunet.be> <002501c1d317$53b0f8a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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" > >>No Michael, totally wrong. >> >>If it is intended as a psyche, I will tell the person doing it that I >>don't regard it as a psyche, and that I would rule against him if it >>had not conformed to the rule of 18 (ie opening without that jack of >>hearts). >> >>If it is intended as a genuine opening bid, I would do nothing. >>It conforms to the rule of 18 so it is not prifa facie evidence that >>this pair are playing HUM. >> >> > > Regulations are fine, but they have to be used with some caution. > > The hand: AKJxxxx/xx/xx/xx does not satisfy the rule of 18. It > is only a Queen below average HCP. According to most systems > it is a genuine opening bid(weak or pre-empt) of 2 or 3 spades > (or multi 2D). > > But if a player decided to try a 1S opening bid I would as TD in > Norway not dream of taking any action against him (provided of > course that there was no "private understanding" involved). > > Even with a valueless dummy this hand has great chances of > making 7 tricks, and with a little values in dummy we could even > be very close to game. > > We must not forget in all this discussion of valid and invalid bids > that a player has the right to take a chance, and to "live or die" > with it. > No he has not. If he opens this hand at the one level, that is evidence that he is playing a HUM. Other evidence might allow me to disregard this, but none of the sort, extra singletons, vulnerability and such. (I would allow a miscount if I thought the player were genuine). The WBF have regulated that weak openings at the one-level are to be considered as HUM. I might not agree with that regulation, but that is not important. I want the WBF to give me an easy guideline as to what constitutes weak hands that are not supposed to be opened. Some authorities have done that. The rule of 18 it is. Then why not simply call hands that do not conform as "weak hands", that are not to be opened systemically ? > 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 Sun Mar 24 23:18:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2OCHIc16692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:17:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2OCH9H16676 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:17:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.135.32] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16p6lU-000I5d-00; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:06:24 +0000 Message-ID: <001801c1d32c$d912e340$2087403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Michael Schmahl" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:09:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > BTW, I'm still waiting to hear comments on the > legality of the regulation that started this thread, > and to hear why WBF hasn't done something about > it. > > -- > Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA > +=+ Hi Michael, Returning yesterday from the EBL Mixed Championships I opened up my screens to find them plastered with messages on this subject. I had decided to stay silent because (a) I do not know what started it, and (b) the voluble Wayne and one or two of his acolytes were, as usual, not listening to the true situation and I feel disinclined to bother with them; others were telling them what they needed to understand and finding the futility of doing so. However, if Fairbanks, Alaska, asks then I will comment for Fairbanks, Alaska, in open reply - so, tell me, what is the question, what regulation are we discussing? The WBF statement on psychics begins: "Psychic bids are specifically permitted by the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, provided that any partnership understandings or agreements are disclosed." The Laws require that where a convention card is prescribed partnerships shall list on it "their conventions and other agreements"; partnership understandings are deemed by the precedents of rulings and appeal committee decisions to be agreements (implicit agreements if not expressly discussed). Under the heading "Psychic Calls" partnership understandings are discussed in the WBF CoP and what is written there is again the official WBF stance on this. ~ 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 Mar 24 23:44:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2OChkW19620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:43:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2OChaH19604 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:43:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2OCX5G18442 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:33:05 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 12:33 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <004201c1d2a3$85856a60$9250003e@erdnbaum> Israel asked: > Common psyhing situations are therefore hardly psyches- I assume they > are common to the opponents too and so they aren't surprised either. So > this is the situations for "as surprised as the opponents" Is bridge > really so complicated? There is no guarantee that opponents possess *any* general bridge knowledge. However, it is not the responsibility of their opponents to work this out. It seems obvious to me that if my partner is more experienced than my opponents there are lots of things he will find less surprising than they do. Experienced players have an advantage over those who are less experienced - perhaps because bridge is quite complicated. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 25 06:12:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2OJBpI27887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:11:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2OJBhH27874 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:11:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 6411 invoked by uid 504); 24 Mar 2002 19:01:07 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.833694 secs); 24 Mar 2002 19:01:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.174) by 0 with SMTP; 24 Mar 2002 19:01:05 -0000 Message-ID: <004901c1d365$c96854a0$ae16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3C9D959B.4080405@village.uunet.be> <002501c1d317$53b0f8a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3C9DB824.4000106@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:57:42 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 11:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > >>No Michael, totally wrong. > >> > >>If it is intended as a psyche, I will tell the person doing it that I > >>don't regard it as a psyche, and that I would rule against him if it > >>had not conformed to the rule of 18 (ie opening without that jack of > >>hearts). > >> > >>If it is intended as a genuine opening bid, I would do nothing. > >>It conforms to the rule of 18 so it is not prifa facie evidence that > >>this pair are playing HUM. > >> > >> > > > > Regulations are fine, but they have to be used with some caution. > > > > The hand: AKJxxxx/xx/xx/xx does not satisfy the rule of 18. It > > is only a Queen below average HCP. According to most systems > > it is a genuine opening bid(weak or pre-empt) of 2 or 3 spades > > (or multi 2D). > > > > But if a player decided to try a 1S opening bid I would as TD in > > Norway not dream of taking any action against him (provided of > > course that there was no "private understanding" involved). > > > > Even with a valueless dummy this hand has great chances of > > making 7 tricks, and with a little values in dummy we could even > > be very close to game. > > > > We must not forget in all this discussion of valid and invalid bids > > that a player has the right to take a chance, and to "live or die" > > with it. > > > > > No he has not. > If he opens this hand at the one level, that is evidence that he is > playing a HUM. Other evidence might allow me to disregard this, but > none of the sort, extra singletons, vulnerability and such. > (I would allow a miscount if I thought the player were genuine). > > The WBF have regulated that weak openings at the one-level are to be considered as HUM. > > > I might not agree with that regulation, but that is not important. The regulations are not allowed to conflict with the laws (L80F). > > I want the WBF to give me an easy guideline as to what constitutes > weak hands that are not supposed to be opened. > Some authorities have done that. The rule of 18 it is. > Then why not simply call hands that do not conform as "weak hands", > that are not to be opened systemically ? Because some of those hands are 'better than a King of more below average' and as such are not subject to regulation. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 25 06:53:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2OJqu602355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:52:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2OJqmH02344 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:52:48 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 22509 invoked by uid 504); 24 Mar 2002 19:42:13 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 2.369308 secs); 24 Mar 2002 19:42:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.174) by 0 with SMTP; 24 Mar 2002 19:42:11 -0000 Message-ID: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Michael Schmahl" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:38:50 +1200 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: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > BTW, I'm still waiting to hear comments on the legality of the regulation > that started this thread, and to hear why WBF hasn't done something about > it. Here is the translated regulation repeated from Gordon Bower's original post in this thread. "Psychic bids The Rule of 18 In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand much follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is true in both club and A-level events." Here is Law40D "The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility." Here is Law 80F "A sponsoring organisation conducting an event under these Laws has the following duties and powers: F. Supplementary Regulations to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." Here is the definition of a convention "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. 2. Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference." The regulation attempts to regulate openings in two ways: 'Rule of 18' and 'three-card major openings'. The law allows regulations of conventional openings and light ('king or more below average') openings. Here are some examples akqj akqxx akjxxx akjxxxx akxxxxxx aqxxxxxxx 1098 xxx xxx xx xx xx 765 xxx xx xx xx x 432 xx xx xx x x aqxxxxxxxx ajxxxxxxxxx x x x x x - (Hopefully) all of these meet the Rule of 17. Which of these would you give up for a hand a king below average. I have calculated that the average suit lengths of your longest, 2nd longest, 3rd longest and shortest suits are: 4.900773564 3.667007628 2.734530388 1.697688419 Therefore the length of your two longest suits is on average 8.567781192. The average number of hcp is 10. So a 'rule of 17' hand is not a king below average. By definition (of a convention) three-card suits are non-conventional. My conclusion ============= Specifically the regulation attempts to regulate hands better than a king below average and non-conventional openings this is clearly a violation of L40D and of L80F. One can only speculate why WBF has done nothing about it. Actually they probably have done something but whatever they have done is insufficient in that many if not most SO continue to promulgate regulations that do not conform to the laws of bridge. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 25 06:56:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2OJuBZ02703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:56:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2OJu3H02686 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:56:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 23894 invoked by uid 504); 24 Mar 2002 19:45:28 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.118086 secs); 24 Mar 2002 19:45:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.174) by 0 with SMTP; 24 Mar 2002 19:45:27 -0000 Message-ID: <008501c1d36b$fc4ab380$ae16b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , References: <001801c1d32c$d912e340$2087403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:42:06 +1200 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: Michael Schmahl Cc: bridge-laws Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 12:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > Grattan Endicott > BTW, I'm still waiting to hear comments on the > > legality of the regulation that started this thread, > > and to hear why WBF hasn't done something about > > it. > Returning yesterday from the EBL Mixed > Championships I opened up my screens to find > them plastered with messages on this subject. > I had decided to stay silent because (a) I do > not know what started it, and (b) the voluble > Wayne and one or two of his acolytes were, > as usual, not listening to the true situation > and I feel disinclined to bother with them; > others were telling them what they needed to > understand and finding the futility of doing so. I think I understand and the law backs up that understanding. What in your opinion do i need to understand? I am willing to listen. Are you? Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 25 07:34:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2OKYWr06767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:34:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2OKYNH06753 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:34:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 4443 invoked by uid 0); 24 Mar 2002 20:23:46 -0000 Received: from pd954ca84.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.84.202.132) by mail.gmx.net (mp006-rz3) with SMTP; 24 Mar 2002 20:23:46 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: "Grattan Endicott" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:19:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Message-ID: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> In-reply-to: <001801c1d32c$d912e340$2087403e@dodona> 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, just the random thoughts of a poor player, On 24 Mar 2002 at 12:09, Grattan Endicott wrote: > Returning yesterday from the EBL Mixed > Championships snipped > The WBF statement on psychics begins: > "Psychic bids are specifically permitted by the > Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, provided > that any partnership understandings or > agreements are disclosed." snipped So this is the position of the very same Mr. Endicott that helped to run the 7th European Mixed Pairs Championship where we can read in the Rules and Regulations: ------------- http://www.eurobridge.org/competitions/02Oostende/OstendPairsRule s.pdf 6. PERMITTED SYSTEMS (b) A psychic call of an artificial or conventional opening bid is forbidden. ------------ If we leave aside the theory that an european championship is a place where novices will make their first steps and eventually must be protected, it seems to me that the the lawmakers have no problem at all to break their own written words. respectfully stefan filonardi kaiserslautern, germany -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 25 19:00:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2P7xr917284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:59:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2P7xfH17264 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:59:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.12.172] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16pPDu-00099S-00; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:48:59 +0000 Message-ID: <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "stefan filonardi" , References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 06:53:40 -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: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > So this is the position of the very same Mr. Endicott that > helped to run the 7th European Mixed Pairs Championship where we > can read in the Rules and Regulations: > > ------------- > 6. PERMITTED SYSTEMS > (b) A psychic call of an artificial or conventional opening bid > is forbidden. > ------------ > > If we leave aside the theory that an european championship is a > place where novices will make their first steps and eventually > must be protected, it seems to me that the the lawmakers have no > problem at all to break their own written words. > +=+ Whilst I contribute to preparation of regulations for EBL Championships I am not finally responsible for their content. The control on conventions that you cite has operated in EBL Championships for very many years. In Ostend (for the first time as far as I remember) it was extended to the Swiss Matches of ten boards in the Mixed Teams. As a regulation of conventions it is lawful under Law 40D. The WBF has a different approach with no such limitation; the ACBL operates a control on psyching certain conventions in all of the tournaments where its regulations apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 25 19:00:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2P7xsB17286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:59:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2P7xhH17267 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:59:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.12.172] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16pPDw-00099S-00; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:49:00 +0000 Message-ID: <003201c1d3d2$0f3048a0$ac0ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Gordon Bower" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:50:44 -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: Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:31 PM Subject: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > > It was mine, not Michael's, post that originally started the > thread. I had been disturbed to learn of an Austrian > regulation that opening a non-rule-of-18 hand in 1st or > 2nd seat is an automatic 60/40. (There is a separate > place in their rules where system is discussed; this > regulation specifically bars this type of psych.) > > Notice that this rule appears *in the section on psychic > bidding*, not in the section on allowable systems. I am > assured that this rule exists for the express purpose of > forbidding anyone to psych a natural 1-bid. > +=+ It seems more a systemic matter than a psyche to me. I have never known the WBF intervene in such a matter except when asked for advice by the NBO or ZA concerned. The WBF did confirm, upon enquiry by the EBL in 1984/5, that it is lawful to ban the psyching of a convention under Law 40D. NBOs subscribe to the By-Laws of the WBF when they seek membership, so that they undertake to respect the interpretations of Law by the WBF (by its Laws Committee subject to ratification by its Executive). For this reason I have long advocated laws which give regulators the flexibility to achieve their wishes in the control of systems, to avoid situations in which the Laws are evaded. In my opinion the Austrian regulation does not conform to the Law as it is. The Rule of Eighteen/Nineteen was almost certainly invented in Austria - it was Karl Rohan who brought it forward internationally, and I suspect this regulation in some form has lingered there ever since. There are two ways in which the regulation could be brought within the law: (a) limit the regulation to hands where the number of HCPs in the hand is less than eight, or (b) let a regulation read "No conventional call may be used by a side after it makes any natural opening bid at the level of One which by partnership agreement may be in default of the Rule of Eighteen". I do not think that it would be advantageous to push the Austrian Federation into adopting, say, (b) above, which is a regulation of conventions under Law 40D. Think carefully about the words "may be in default". The powers in 40D are unrestricted, as the WBFLC observed in its reply to the EBL mentioned earlier. ~ 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 Mar 25 21:05:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PA3QK00992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:03:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2PA3GH00972 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 21:03:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75544.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.167.24]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2P9qYD22569 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:52:34 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C9EF392.4060506@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:53:22 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@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: > > My conclusion > ============= > > Specifically the regulation attempts to regulate hands better than a king > below average and non-conventional openings this is clearly a violation of > L40D and of L80F. > > One can only speculate why WBF has done nothing about it. Actually they > probably have done something but whatever they have done is insufficient in > that many if not most SO continue to promulgate regulations that do not > conform to the laws of bridge. > > Wayne > What does one do if a regional authority issues a law or regulation that is apparently illegal under some higher ranking law ? One goes to a higher judge to have the regulation overturned. meanwhile, one follows that Law. So if you want to petition the WBF to have the EBL regulation be declared invalid under the laws, please do so. But stop this discussion. It serves absolutely no purpose. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 25 22:40:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PBcrS10863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:38:53 +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 g2PBcfH10841 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:38:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2PBS7s02555 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:28:07 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:28 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <3C9EF392.4060506@village.uunet.be> Herman asks: > What does one do if a regional authority issues a law or regulation > that is apparently illegal under some higher ranking law ? One goes > to a higher judge to have the regulation overturned. > meanwhile, one follows that Law. Er not quite. If UK law is in conflict with European law then I will follow the European law. The UK legal system is subordinate to the European one. While I might be prosecuted in the short term in the UK I know that when the final judgement is made it will be in my favour. The exact responsibilities/hierarchy in the more limited world of bridge are less clear-cut but the same principle of subsidiarity appears to exist. Players and TDs must obey the international laws and legal regulations established under those laws - TDs in particular have a responsibility to disobey any regulations they know to be illegal (I am not unsympathetic to the difficult position a TD may be in if his club manager asks him to penalise all psyches but I just think it is absolutely wrong for the Club/SO/ZO or whatever to take such an approach.) Tim. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Mar 25 22:40:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PBcsO10864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:38:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2PBcfH10843 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:38:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2PBS8502569 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:28:08 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:28 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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: <003201c1d3d2$0f3048a0$ac0ce150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > b) "No conventional call may be > used by a side after it makes any natural opening bid at > the level of One which by partnership agreement may > be in default of the Rule of Eighteen". Actually they could make it "No conventional call may be used by a side after it makes any opening bid which is, or may be in default of the Rule of twenty". - ruling out opening 1N on flat 12, psyching, swing actions, and many other things as well. > I do not think that it would be advantageous to push > the Austrian Federation into adopting, say, (b) above, > which is a regulation of conventions under Law 40D. > Think carefully about the words "may be in default". The > powers in 40D are unrestricted, as the WBFLC > observed in its reply to the EBL mentioned earlier. The powers in 40D are unrestricted, not because of the language they use, but precisely because the WBF was too cowardly to face up to the ACBL (and others) when the latter bodies started to abuse the powers actually granted by 40D. Since the WBF interpretation of 40D allows the grotesquerie above, and since this would give WBF members the power to ban psyches and light natural openings (the right to which are clearly enshrined in the laws), it is obvious that L40D was never intended to be used in this way. It's about time the WBF realised that the interpretation they gave for L40d is fundamentally flawed. To honest I am absolutely amazed that the WBF *wants* to grant such powers to ZOs/SOs or indeed anyone.* * OK I'd be happy for organisers of novice/special events to be able to use restrictions which are in conflict with the law - but that should be limited in effect. 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 Mar 26 00:15:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PDDPD20779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:13:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2PDDFH20762 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:13:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-75544.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.167.24]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2PD2TD20930 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:02:29 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3C9F2014.4060504@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:03:16 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <3C9EF392.4060506@village.uunet.be> > Herman asks: > > >>What does one do if a regional authority issues a law or regulation >>that is apparently illegal under some higher ranking law ? One goes >>to a higher judge to have the regulation overturned. >>meanwhile, one follows that Law. >> > > Er not quite. If UK law is in conflict with European law then I will > follow the European law. The UK legal system is subordinate to the > European one. While I might be prosecuted in the short term in the UK I > know that when the final judgement is made it will be in my favour. No Tim, absolutely not. Belgium has quite often been convicted before the European Courts for issuing illegal taxes. They were then abolished, but the taxes were not payed back, and the fines imposed for people who had not payed them were not retracted. It's all well and good playing the martyr, but it won't get you off the hook. > The exact responsibilities/hierarchy in the more limited world of bridge > are less clear-cut but the same principle of subsidiarity appears to > exist. Players and TDs must obey the international laws and > legal regulations established under those laws - TDs in particular have a > responsibility to disobey any regulations they know to be illegal (I am > not unsympathetic to the difficult position a TD may be in if his club > manager asks him to penalise all psyches but I just think it is absolutely > wrong for the Club/SO/ZO or whatever to take such an approach.) > > 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 Mar 26 00:26:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PDOhm21916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:24:43 +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 g2PDOZH21903 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:24:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16pUIT-0000aJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 08:14:01 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 08:15:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <005001c1d1f0$4fcd5ee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@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 05:24 PM 3/22/02, Sven wrote: > > > Law40A: A player may make any call or play (including an > intentionally > > > misleading > > > call - such as a psychic bid - ..... > > > > > > This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the > freedom >to > > > psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be formulated: > > > The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to > partner > > > as it is to opponents. > > > > I don't agree. There are many reasons why partner will be less > surprised. > >Yes, and the usual reason is partnership experience which immediately >makes the psyche illegal. (As you stated in your next sentence) > > > IMO the only restriction that can be deduced from law happens if > and when >a > > psyche stops being a psyche and becomes a part of your partnership > > agreements. Let us not err by assuming that for a psych to be "less surprising to partner than to opponents" necessarily means that there is some kind of implicit or concealed understanding. I can imagine playing with a total stranger whom I met just before game time. I know only that he is in his 60s, and likes to play straightforward, seat-of-the-pants bidding methods. We sit down against two thirty-somethings playing an elaborate, super-scientific method. I hear 1H-X-?, and choose to make what, 40 years ago, would have been a "routine" 1S psych holding xx/Kxxxx/Jxx/xxx. Based purely on a predictable mental set that reflects one's overall view of the game, I can be confident that my psych will be "less surprising" to my partner than to my opponents. But this doesn't mean we have an agreement of any kind. Or does 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 Tue Mar 26 00:54:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PDqfW24953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:52:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2PDqWH24935 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 00:52:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2PDfw206132 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:41:58 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 13:41 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <3C9F2014.4060504@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > Belgium has quite often been convicted before the European Courts for > issuing illegal taxes. They were then abolished, but the taxes were > not payed back, and the fines imposed for people who had not payed > them were not retracted. Sounds as if Belgium is not following the law as it should (nothing unusual about that in the UK either). The individual can end up being shafted whatever they choose to do. Expect appeals to the ECHR when Belgium imprisons someone for non-payment of fines for non-payment of illegal taxes. I am aware of cases where businesses have followed UK (rather than European) law and ended up much worse off as a result. However, the principle of following international, rather than national, law was pretty much established at Nuremberg and I don't think it has been overturned since. On balance the individual probably has to make choices every time and constitutional differences between institutions probably make such analogies moot. The real question is: If the Belgian bridge authorities did instruct you, as TD, to penalise all psyches automatically would you do it or would you abide by the international laws? Would you accept that someone who chose the opposite path had also made a reasonable choice? 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 Mar 26 01:13:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PECFu26872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:12:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2PEC6H26859 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:12:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16pV2T-0000Lg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:01:33 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020325084214.00b661b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:02:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <016401c1d2bb$e555b040$ec16b9d2@laptop> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <005c01c1d1e1$7b79a120$314c003e@erdnbaum> <00a701c1d1e6$6867c940$b116b9d2@laptop> <004b01c1d1ee$3209a8c0$b44d003e@erdnbaum> <008e01c1d1fe$ebea8c40$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001701c1d204$47990f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00a701c1d20e$dbc6d2a0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002b01c1d217$df04d080$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00d701c1d25b$d56c8380$ec16b9d2@laptop> <002f01c1d25e$52438500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <00e301c1d260$e7d0d1c0$ec16b9d2@laptop> <001101c1d26f$2b417f00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:41 PM 3/23/02, Wayne wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Sven Pran > > > Another way of deciding this question is to ask yourself the > question: Is >it > > at least a bit likely that partner will expect me to be aware that this > > could > > be a violation of our expressed agreements? > >Read L75B > >Partner is allowed to be a aware that this 'could be a >violation'. Partner >is not allowed to be aware "of the violation". > >The difference in these statements is fundamental. One uses the definite >article - the law is referring to a particular violation. Whilst the >other - your arguement is referring to a general tendancy. > >I am often aware that my partner's bid could be a psyche but I do not >recall >a time when I was aware that a particular bid was a psyche at the time the >bid was made. > >It is this latter situation that is outlawed by L75B. > >That is Partner must be aware of the (this particular) violation. I believe common sense lies somewhere between these positions. For a partnership to have a "general tendency" to psych may mean nothing more than that they do not have an agreement (explicit or implicit) that they will never psych. I do not believe that a partnership that plays "occasional psychs" has fundamentally different disclosure requirements than a partnership that plays "we never psych" -- both must explain (only) the agreed meaning of their calls, and both must disclose their propensity (or lack thereof) to psych if asked. But there is no special agreement subject to disclosure just because a partnership that claims to psych occasionally psychs occasionally. What creates an implicit agreement is for a partnership to have a "specific tendency" to psych. If and when you discover that partner is particularly likely to make one of those "occasional psychs" in some particular situation, you have developed an implicit understanding, which must be freely disclosed when asked about the meaning of partner's (potentially psychic) bid *in that situation*. In any case, of course, an opponent who specifically inquires about your partnership's tendency to psych is entitled to a core dump of everything you know that might be relevant. 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 Mar 26 01:47:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PEjnu00462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:45:49 +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 g2PEjeH00447 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 01:45:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16pVYx-0007H5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:35:07 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:36:18 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <3C9EF392.4060506@village.uunet.be> References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:53 AM 3/25/02, Herman wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >>My conclusion [snip] >What does one do if a regional authority issues a law or regulation >that is apparently illegal under some higher ranking law ? One goes >to a higher judge to have the regulation overturned. >meanwhile, one follows that Law. > >So if you want to petition the WBF to have the EBL regulation be >declared invalid under the laws, please do so. >But stop this discussion. It serves absolutely no purpose. To paraphrase Voltaire, I disapprove of what Wayne says, but I will defend to the death (well, perhaps not quite that far) his right to say it. If he wishes to have a law or regulation that he believes to be apparently illegal under some higher ranking law declared invalid, he needs not only to petition the WBF, but to convince some with influence in the WBF to grant that petition. The right way to do that is by arguing his case in a forum in which such folks participate. This is precisely such a forum. Rather than stop this discussion, let us instead stop sending "stop this discussion" messages. Discussion, after all, is what this group is 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 26 02:08:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PF6cH02723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 02:06:38 +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 g2PF6UH02709 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 02:06:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16pVt7-0004S7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:55:57 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020325094531.00b62e90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:57:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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 06:28 AM 3/25/02, twm wrote: >Actually they could make it "No conventional call may be used by a side >after it makes any opening bid which is, or may be in default of the Rule >of twenty". - ruling out opening 1N on flat 12, psyching, swing actions, >and many other things as well. Why stop there? They could just as easily make it, "No conventional call may be used by a side after it makes any opening bid which is or may be in default of the rule of forty-five." >The powers in 40D are unrestricted, not because of the language they use, >but precisely because the WBF was too cowardly to face up to the ACBL >(and >others) when the latter bodies started to abuse the powers actually >granted by 40D. Since the WBF interpretation of 40D allows the >grotesquerie above, and since this would give WBF members the power to >ban >psyches and light natural openings (the right to which are clearly >enshrined in the laws), it is obvious that L40D was never intended to be >used in this way. It's about time the WBF realised that the >interpretation they gave for L40d is fundamentally flawed. > >To honest I am absolutely amazed that the WBF *wants* to grant such >powers >to ZOs/SOs or indeed anyone.* One could easily believe that they do not want to, but that they are powerless to do otherwise, that they do not wish to make an official promulgation of some rational position and suffer the consequences of having one (or perhaps more) of their member organizations laugh in their faces without fear of retribution. "Cowardly" is a bit strong if, in fact, they are simply refusing to start a fight they know they can't win. 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 Mar 26 02:10:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PF9HH03035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 02:09:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2PF98H03018 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 02:09:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2PEwYn03292 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:58:34 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:58 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > I can imagine playing with a total stranger whom I met just before game > time. I know only that he is in his 60s, and likes to play > straightforward, seat-of-the-pants bidding methods. We sit down > against two thirty-somethings playing an elaborate, super-scientific > method. I hear 1H-X-?, and choose to make what, 40 years ago, would > have been a "routine" 1S psych holding xx/Kxxxx/Jxx/xxx. Based purely > on a predictable mental set that reflects one's overall view of the > game, I can be confident that my psych will be "less surprising" to my > partner than to my opponents As a thirty-something who is occasionally forced to play scientific systems I don't think I'd be surprised (just bitter because my stupid system won't let me expose the psyche). The 22 year old David Gold (who can also play scientific systems) is among many young players I know who would also be entirely unsurprised. I hope this cheers you up a bit. The thing such young players have in common is that they have had their skills honed by playing in a high quality rubber bridge game against all comers. The people who would be surprised are those who have failed to round out their experience by broadening their approach to the game. Just to give an example. I was playing online against a couple of fairly experienced duplicate players. I was obviously playing with a pick-up partner. About the third hand I had reasonable 1NT opener (Ok it had a singleton but so what). Four hands later, with a *new* pick-up partner I got another one. After the hand my RHO stormed off in huff believing I had been cheating. This perception is so strongly ingrained in some players that it took my LHO and I some ten minutes to persuade RHO that I had done nothing wrong. I actually promised not to do it again that session so we could play on (thank god I didn't get dealt another). Just in case we think narrow attitudes are all on one side here is a definition of "Convention" from the Wood. "Something that lets a pair take four bids to get to the wrong contract instead of two bids to get to the right one." I don't know if that is of any use for laws interpretations. 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 Mar 26 03:05:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PG3kT09301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:03:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2PG3aH09280 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:03:36 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2PFr0Q17038; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:53:00 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:53:00 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2PFr0J28160; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:53:00 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:53:00 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA00734; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:52:59 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA00669; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:52:59 GMT Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:52:59 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200203251552.PAA00669@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Mon Mar 25 15:03:21 2002 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 14:58 +0000 (GMT) > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > X-Ameol-Version: 2.52.2000, Windows 2000 build 2195 > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > Content-Length: 2577 > > In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net> > Eric wrote: > > > I can imagine playing with a total stranger whom I met just before game > > time. I know only that he is in his 60s, and likes to play > > straightforward, seat-of-the-pants bidding methods. We sit down > > against two thirty-somethings playing an elaborate, super-scientific > > method. I hear 1H-X-?, and choose to make what, 40 years ago, would > > have been a "routine" 1S psych holding xx/Kxxxx/Jxx/xxx. Based purely > > on a predictable mental set that reflects one's overall view of the > > game, I can be confident that my psych will be "less surprising" to my > > partner than to my opponents > > As a thirty-something who is occasionally forced to play scientific > Just in case we think narrow attitudes are all on one side here is a > definition of "Convention" from the Wood. "Something that lets a pair > take four bids to get to the wrong contract instead of two bids to get to > the right one." I don't know if that is of any use for laws > interpretations. I think it supports the "I know one when I see one" definition of a convention. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 26 03:26:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PGP1011609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:25:01 +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-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g2PGOqH11596 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:24:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.51.7] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16pX6h-000Pb7-00; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 16:14:04 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c1d418$1f913c40$0733e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Tim Westmead" , Cc: "Tim Westmead" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 15:48:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > > it is obvious that L40D was never intended to > be used in this way. It's about time the WBF > realised that the interpretation they gave for > L40d is fundamentally flawed. > > To honest I am absolutely amazed that the > WBF *wants* to grant such powers to ZOs/SOs > or indeed anyone.* > +=+ It is legitimate to trust the regulator to regulate for its own tournaments. Further, there is wisdom in not making laws and interpretations that will be unenforceable in practice. And when WBF authority establishes a position it may be arguable but it is not 'obvious' that the contrary view of an individual should be entertained. ~ 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 Mar 26 05:14:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PICQw27181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:12:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2PICGH27161 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:12:17 +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 g2OIIbo20185 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:18:38 GMT Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:00:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net> >Eric wrote: > snip > >Just to give an example. I was playing online against a couple of >fairly experienced duplicate players. I was obviously playing with a >pick-up partner. About the third hand I had reasonable 1NT opener (Ok it >had a singleton but so what). Four hands later, with a *new* pick-up >partner I got another one. After the hand my RHO stormed off in huff >believing I had been cheating. This perception is so strongly ingrained >in some players that it took my LHO and I some ten minutes to persuade RHO >that I had done nothing wrong. I actually promised not to do it again >that session so we could play on (thank god I didn't get dealt another). > But it was very refreshing (playing on ebuonline) when one of our opponents congratulated you on the successful outcome of one of your more creative efforts. cheers john >Just in case we think narrow attitudes are all on one side here is a >definition of "Convention" from the Wood. "Something that lets a pair >take four bids to get to the wrong contract instead of two bids to get to >the right one." Tim's and my team-mates in the National club ko's are very street-wise rubber bridge players. One of them (I've written about him before as Louis) is incredibly caustic about opponents conventional methods, see above. Despite his entirely rustic bidding methods, I lose money to him at the rubber bridge table, as he has an awe inspiring table presence and an ability to wrong-foot me frequently. There is no doubt in my mind that I'm a far better duplicate player as a result of playing rubber against him. Tim and I, playing together, play almost entirely natural methods because we find that we do best this way. We both *could* play a pretty scientific system as a pair, but at ko teams we think our interests are best served by not doing this. The way we see it is as follows. We don't tell much about our hands because we take few bids. We play the dummies pretty well, and the opponents *need* to signal to make up for the lack of info given in the auction. We can read these signals, and make use of them, and we get back any loss of precision in our auction during the play. However the big advantage comes when we defend. We listen to our opponents longer auctions and we don't signal. We're already ahead on the opening lead, and we defend as we do at rubber, working out the cards partner *needs* to hold to beat the contract. We've been helped here by the auction compared with our usual situation at the rubber tables, so it's relatively easy for us. In addition, declarer gets no signals, so plays the hand completely in the dark. We're about half a trick ahead of declarer *all* the time. This is why we're in the last 32 of the national ko's with a pair that has never played duplicate in the other room. We're just the "three pound" team. Our other team is from the "ten pound" table, and they're a bit better than we are. In fact they're 4 internationals. > I don't know if that is of any use for laws >interpretations. > >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 Tue Mar 26 05:23:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PILX228288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:21:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2PILOH28271 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 05:21:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2PIAou28132 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:10:50 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:10 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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: <000401c1d418$1f913c40$0733e150@pacific> Grattan wrote: > +=+ It is legitimate to trust the regulator to regulate > for its own tournaments. The evidence, from Austria, ACBL, and EBU, sadly indicates the opposite. > Further, there is wisdom > in not making laws and interpretations that will be > unenforceable in practice. If you are saying that the ZOs are outside the authority of the WBF then I suggest you abandon all hope of Olympic recognition. It is, I believe, a prerequisite that, for example, drugs policy is enforced by the international authority. > And when WBF > authority establishes a position it may be arguable > but it is not 'obvious' that the contrary view of an > individual should be entertained. Are you seriously suggesting that when L40D was written the legislators intended that it be used to prevent psyches in total contradiction to the clearly expressed desire of L40A. I'm sorry but get real! 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 Mar 26 06:48:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PJkb408189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:46:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2PJkTH08175 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:46:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g2PJZtr14061; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:35:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:30:48 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Tim West-meads" < > > If you are saying that the ZOs are outside the authority of the WBF then I > suggest you abandon all hope of Olympic recognition. It is, I believe, a > prerequisite that, for example, drugs policy is enforced by the > international authority. > I believe another requirement for recognition is a universal set of Laws or Rules, not varying according to political boundaries. 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 Mar 26 07:36:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PKZNK14867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 07:35:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp012.mail.yahoo.com (smtp012.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.173.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2PKZEH14850 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 07:35:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from gipsonp (AUTH login) at pooh-corner.demon.co.uk (HELO paul) (gipsonp@194.222.80.124) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2002 20:24:06 -0000 Message-ID: <005401c1d43b$3b125260$7c50dec2@paul> From: "Paul Gipson" To: Subject: [BLML] How far can UI affect your bid? Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:25:36 -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 Playing in a reasonably strong County event, one of my teammates had the following problem: Board 17. IMPS; Love All; Dealer N South: S:T97 H:K87 D:K C:AKQT64 North East South West Pass 1NT (1) Dbl (2) Redbl (3) Pass Pass ?? (1) Strong NT; 15-17 (2) Intended as a penalty double, but alerted (3) West asks & North says it the majors. Redouble is to play. He now woke up & realised partner had given the correct explanation of his defence to a Strong NT. An ethical player, he was aware of the constraints due to UI and that he was not allowed to "wake up" and duly passed as he believed this to be the only LA. However, discussing this afterwards (in the bar), it was suggested that there is a case that South had unauthorised information in that North has not bid a major, making it more likely that the clubs were likely to run. So if 1NT had gone down would EW have a case that South should have bid 2C? [Of course there is also the problem there is something distinctly fishy about the auction, with at least 50 points in the pack.] Thanks, paul ------------------------- Paul Gipson Sandhurst, England _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 26 08:47:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PLjLj22843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:45:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2PLjBH22824 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:45:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1119.bb.online.no [80.212.212.95]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA07033 for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:34:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003001c1d444$d9756a60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 22:34:30 +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: "Eric Landau" ..... > Let us not err by assuming that for a psych to be "less surprising to > partner than to opponents" necessarily means that there is some kind of > implicit or concealed understanding. > > I can imagine playing with a total stranger whom I met just before game > time. I know only that he is in his 60s, and likes to play > straightforward, seat-of-the-pants bidding methods. We sit down > against two thirty-somethings playing an elaborate, super-scientific > method. I hear 1H-X-?, and choose to make what, 40 years ago, would > have been a "routine" 1S psych holding xx/Kxxxx/Jxx/xxx. Based purely > on a predictable mental set that reflects one's overall view of the > game, I can be confident that my psych will be "less surprising" to my > partner than to my opponents. But this doesn't mean we have an > agreement of any kind. Or does it? As a matter of fact it does. Your expectations of this partner is (according to your own statement) dependent upon your knowledge of his particular background. That makes your expectations part of an implicit partnership understanding. 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 Mar 26 09:20:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PMIDF26390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:18:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2PMI5H26373 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:18:05 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 12071 invoked by uid 504); 25 Mar 2002 22:07:28 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.923224 secs); 25 Mar 2002 22:07:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.209) by 0 with SMTP; 25 Mar 2002 22:07:27 -0000 Message-ID: <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:37:18 +1200 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: stefan filonardi ; Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 6:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > +=+ Whilst I contribute to preparation of regulations > for EBL Championships I am not finally responsible > for their content. The control on conventions that you > cite has operated in EBL Championships for very > many years. In Ostend (for the first time as far as > I remember) it was extended to the Swiss Matches > of ten boards in the Mixed Teams. As a regulation > of conventions it is lawful under Law 40D. But plainly illegal and unreasonable under L40A and L80F. 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 Mar 26 09:20:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2PMIKg26402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:18:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2PMIAH26384 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 12138 invoked by uid 504); 25 Mar 2002 22:07:33 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.881287 secs); 25 Mar 2002 22:07:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.209) by 0 with SMTP; 25 Mar 2002 22:07:31 -0000 Message-ID: <00a001c1d448$ffba0740$d916b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb><006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:54:43 +1200 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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > At 05:24 PM 3/22/02, Sven wrote: > > > > > Law40A: A player may make any call or play (including an > > intentionally > > > > misleading > > > > call - such as a psychic bid - ..... > > > > > > > > This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the > > freedom > >to > > > > psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be formulated: > > > > The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to > > partner > > > > as it is to opponents. > > > > > > I don't agree. There are many reasons why partner will be less > > surprised. > > > >Yes, and the usual reason is partnership experience which immediately > >makes the psyche illegal. (As you stated in your next sentence) > > > > > IMO the only restriction that can be deduced from law happens if > > and when > >a > > > psyche stops being a psyche and becomes a part of your partnership > > > agreements. > > Let us not err by assuming that for a psych to be "less surprising to > partner than to opponents" necessarily means that there is some kind of > implicit or concealed understanding. Absolutely! > > I can imagine playing with a total stranger whom I met just before game > time. I know only that he is in his 60s, and likes to play > straightforward, seat-of-the-pants bidding methods. We sit down > against two thirty-somethings playing an elaborate, super-scientific > method. I hear 1H-X-?, and choose to make what, 40 years ago, would > have been a "routine" 1S psych holding xx/Kxxxx/Jxx/xxx. Based purely > on a predictable mental set that reflects one's overall view of the > game, I can be confident that my psych will be "less surprising" to my > partner than to my opponents. But this doesn't mean we have an > agreement of any kind. Or does it? This is difficult. Clearly you have no explicit agreement. You may have an implicit agreement. This however creates a problem: What happens when you (or your partner) assumes you have an implicit agreement but you do not. In your example, for example, it turns out that your 60-something partner has never psyched in his life and thoroughly disapproves of partner psyching. Potenially you create problems when you assume an implicit agreement when there is not one. 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 Mar 26 15:28:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2Q4RiN17463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:27:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail6.bigmailbox.com (mail6.bigmailbox.com [209.132.220.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2Q4RaH17450 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:27:36 +1100 (EST) Received: (from www@localhost) by mail6.bigmailbox.com (8.11.6/8.10.0) id g2Q4GuF01819; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:16:56 -0800 Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:16:56 -0800 Message-Id: <200203260416.g2Q4GuF01819@mail6.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: [142.59.178.114] From: "Michael Farebrother" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Some Cohen-Berkowitz details Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry to start a new thread - I caught up on two weeks' worth of BLML today, and assumed someone would have answered this before. It's not much, but the Cohen-Berkowitz WBF CC and supplementary notes (as of Salt Lake City) are available at ecats. http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b7/default.asp , then Systems/Salt Lake City/Men's Teams/USA Berkowitz-Cohen. (sorry I don't give direct URI's, but they're huge and ugly). 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 Tue Mar 26 15:28:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2Q4QXY17335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:26:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tomts9-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts9.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2Q4QOH17321 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:26:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from ETM3 ([64.230.92.16]) by tomts9-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.23 201-229-121-123-20010418) with ESMTP id <20020326041550.OLD20830.tomts9-srv.bellnexxia.net@ETM3> for ; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:15:50 -0500 From: "Glen Ashton" To: Subject: [BLML] Part Question Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:15:38 -0500 Message-ID: <001801c1d47c$e2d3f760$0100a8c0@ETM3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You direct in ACBL land and arrive at the table to best determine these facts: The bidding started one club opening, two club overcall. The overcaller's partner alerted the cuebid. Responder began to ask what the cuebid was, beginning with "What is tha...". At the very same time the overcaller stated to partner that "cuebids are not alertable" (which is true in ACBL land at least). Responder (a relative rookie) then did not complete question or restate it. Both opener and responder assume overcaller has a Michael's cuebid with both majors. Instead overcaller had spades and diamonds (top and bottom) so a good heart contract was missed. The director is called at the completion of play, when overcaller's hand type is fully realized. Overcaller and partner are very experienced players. Opener and responder are novice/intermediate. How do you go about ruling on this hand? Glen Ashton My bridge stuff: www.bridgematters.com www.GlenAshton.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 Mar 26 17:43:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2Q6fjk04419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:41:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2Q6faH04400 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:41:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.16.215] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16pkPd-000MiC-00; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:26:29 +0000 Message-ID: <002701c1d490$4fa24be0$2aa0403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , Cc: References: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:34:00 -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: Cc: Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 7:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > > From: "Tim West-meads" < > > > > If you are saying that the ZOs are outside the authority of the > > WBF then I suggest you abandon all hope of Olympic > > recognition. It is, I believe, a prerequisite that, for > > example, drugs policy is enforced by the international > > authority. > > > I believe another requirement for recognition is a universal set > of Laws or Rules, not varying according to political boundaries. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > +=+ An NBO is an affiliate of the WBF. A ZO is a limb of the WBF. Olympic recognition will import fresh responsibilities, but it is premature to judge how these will apply in a "mind sport". ~ 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 Mar 26 17:47:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2Q6jWm04829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:45:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2Q6jPH04816 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:45:25 +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 RAA24200 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:47:27 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:32:47 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Part Question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:28:00 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 26/03/2002 05:32:59 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Glen Ashton partly wrote: >You direct in ACBL land and arrive at the table to best >determine these facts: > >The bidding started one club opening, two club overcall. >The overcaller's partner alerted the cuebid. Responder >began to ask what the cuebid was, beginning with "What >is tha...". At the very same time the overcaller stated >to partner that "cuebids are not alertable" (which is >true in ACBL land at least). Responder (a relative >rookie) then did not complete question or restate it. >Both opener and responder assume overcaller has a >Michael's cuebid with both majors. Instead overcaller >had spades and diamonds [snip] My partial ruling is: 1. It appears that opener and responder misheard or misinterpreted overcaller's statement as "Michael's cuebids are not alertable". Under Law 21A they have no redress. 2. However, overcaller's partner payed insufficient attention to the game, Law 74B1, by not noticing that overcaller had interrupted a question. 3. Meanwhile, overcaller had violated Law 74A2 and Law 73A1 with their remark. Given the experience of overcaller and their partner, I would apply a significant PP to both. Furthermore, under Law 75, I would not be able to adjust the score unless .... Best wishes Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 26 19:10:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2Q88Zt13343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:08:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2Q88QH13326 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:08:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g2Q7vqr25111; Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:57:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001a01c1d49b$e825df20$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c1d490$4fa24be0$2aa0403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:55:25 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > From: "Marvin L. French" . > > > > I believe another requirement for recognition is a universal set > > of Laws or Rules, not varying according to political boundaries. > > +=+ An NBO is an affiliate of the WBF. > A ZO is a limb of the WBF. > Olympic recognition will import > fresh responsibilities, but it is premature > to judge how these will apply in a "mind > sport". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >From the IOC website: The International Federations (IFs) are international non-governmental organisations recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as administering one or more sports at world level. The national federations administering those sports are affiliated to them. While conserving their independence and autonomy in the administration of their sports, International Sports Federations seeking IOC recognition must ensure that their statutes, practice and activities conform with the Olympic Charter. >From the Olympic Charter: 30 - Role of the IFs is to: 1.1 establish and enforce, in accordance with the Olympic spirit, the rules concerning the practice of their respective sports and to ensure their application. This is all in accord with the WBF By-Laws, which say that the WBFLC is responsible for creating and interpreting the Laws of Contract Bridge. That's good, because I don't see that the IOC would be likely to change the Olympic Charter to make special provisions for "mind sports." 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 Mar 26 19:36:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2Q8YRd15965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:34:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2Q8YIH15945 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:34:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mel-rta6.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.222) by mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr; 26 Mar 2002 09:23:38 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.249.226.71) by mel-rta6.wanadoo.fr; 26 Mar 2002 09:23:23 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c1d49f$3ea6ec60$47e2f9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: References: <001801c1d47c$e2d3f760$0100a8c0@ETM3> Subject: Re: [BLML] Part Question Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:21:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Cue-bid are may be not alertable BUT you still have to answer a question! So it's a misexplanation for me, and i adjust scores for both as overcallers are experienced and openers are rookies. May be just against overcaller if both are experienced because they don't reasked the question. Here, there could be a confusion about the right to ask question % the need to alert. Olivier. ----- Original Message ----- From: Glen Ashton To: Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 5:15 AM Subject: [BLML] Part Question > You direct in ACBL land and arrive at the table to best determine these > facts: > > The bidding started one club opening, two club overcall. The > overcaller's partner alerted the cuebid. Responder began to ask what > the cuebid was, beginning with "What is tha...". At the very same time > the overcaller stated to partner that "cuebids are not alertable" (which > is true in ACBL land at least). Responder (a relative rookie) then did > not complete question or restate it. Both opener and responder assume > overcaller has a Michael's cuebid with both majors. Instead overcaller > had spades and diamonds (top and bottom) so a good heart contract was > missed. The director is called at the completion of play, when > overcaller's hand type is fully realized. Overcaller and partner are > very experienced players. Opener and responder are novice/intermediate. > > > How do you go about ruling on this hand? > > Glen Ashton > My bridge stuff: www.bridgematters.com > www.GlenAshton.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 Tue Mar 26 19:41:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2Q8e5H16560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:40:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2Q8duH16536 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:39:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-37-229-175.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.37.229.175]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002032501/PL) with SMTP id g2Q8T8SD023047 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:29:20 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 03:29:36 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <63a0augoq13ctu9upjrkmqv8jbj9qsj22t@4ax.com> References: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c1d490$4fa24be0$2aa0403e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002701c1d490$4fa24be0$2aa0403e@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 Tue, 26 Mar 2002 06:34:00 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: (first paragraph from Marv French) >> I believe another requirement for recognition is a universal set >> of Laws or Rules, not varying according to political boundaries. >> >> >+=+ An NBO is an affiliate of the WBF. > A ZO is a limb of the WBF. > Olympic recognition will import >fresh responsibilities, but it is premature >to judge how these will apply in a "mind >sport". I share Marv's belief that there is an IOC requirement for a single world-wide set of rules enforced by the relevant international organisation. It seems that the particular sport in question is not seen as relevant - or at least, from what reading I've done, I'm unable to find any listed exceptions. Does the WBF have some grounds for believing that there is a possibility that the IOC will waive this requirement in the case of bridge? Without such grounds, "premature" is not the word I'd choose to describe a suggestion that the WBF will need to conform with the existing requirements. I'd like to see bridge represented in the Olympics. I think it would be a great shame if full recognition is not forthcoming on he grounds that the WBF can't meet one of the basic requirements. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 26 19:50:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2Q8nHF17552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:49:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2Q8n7H17535 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:49:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95827.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.83] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2Q8cMr09233 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:38:22 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA033AE.3010102@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:39:10 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@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 04:53 AM 3/25/02, Herman wrote: > >> Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>> My conclusion >> > > [snip] > >> What does one do if a regional authority issues a law or regulation >> that is apparently illegal under some higher ranking law ? One goes >> to a higher judge to have the regulation overturned. >> meanwhile, one follows that Law. >> >> So if you want to petition the WBF to have the EBL regulation be >> declared invalid under the laws, please do so. >> But stop this discussion. It serves absolutely no purpose. > > > To paraphrase Voltaire, I disapprove of what Wayne says, but I will > defend to the death (well, perhaps not quite that far) his right to say > it. If he wishes to have a law or regulation that he believes to be > apparently illegal under some higher ranking law declared invalid, he > needs not only to petition the WBF, but to convince some with influence > in the WBF to grant that petition. The right way to do that is by > arguing his case in a forum in which such folks participate. This is > precisely such a forum. > > Rather than stop this discussion, let us instead stop sending "stop this > discussion" messages. Discussion, after all, is what this group is for. > > You are wrong in believing that this group equals the WBF. Some members of the WBFLC, but not all, read this group, but hardly with the interest that you believe. And there really is no discussion. Wayne believes the regulation to be illegal. Some agree, some don't. But there is nothing we can do - the regulation is there and we (you) have to argue someplace else about changing it. Us discussing whether or not it is legal has no influence on that. > -- 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 Mar 26 19:58:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2Q8unq18428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:56:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2Q8ueH18403 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:56:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95827.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.83] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2Q8jxr16881 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:45:59 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA03577.7090005@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 09:46:47 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <3C9F2014.4060504@village.uunet.be> > Herman wrote: > >>Belgium has quite often been convicted before the European Courts for >>issuing illegal taxes. They were then abolished, but the taxes were >>not payed back, and the fines imposed for people who had not payed >>them were not retracted. >> > > Sounds as if Belgium is not following the law as it should (nothing > unusual about that in the UK either). The individual can end up being > shafted whatever they choose to do. Expect appeals to the ECHR when > Belgium imprisons someone for non-payment of fines for non-payment of > illegal taxes. I am aware of cases where businesses have followed UK > (rather than European) law and ended up much worse off as a result. I rather doubt that. > However, the principle of following international, rather than national, > law was pretty much established at Nuremberg and I don't think it has been > overturned since. On balance the individual probably has to make choices > every time and constitutional differences between institutions probably > make such analogies moot. > I believe Nuremberg told us that people merely following orders were not to be blamed, only those giving the orders. But that is hardly the point, is it ? > The real question is: If the Belgian bridge authorities did instruct you, > as TD, to penalise all psyches automatically would you do it or would you > abide by the international laws? Would you accept that someone who chose > the opposite path had also made a reasonable choice? > I think I would fight very hard to have the regulation overturned, and if unsuccessful and firmly believing the regulation to be illegal, would refuse to direct at all. But I don't think it can happen, as clearly as that. If you ask me to accept that some may have different opinions, could you please do the same ? You think some regulation is illegal, but others disagree. What's wrong with following a regulation whilst asking to have it ruled legal or not ? > 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 Mar 26 21:03:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QA29h25677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:02:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2QA20H25655 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:02:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.128]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTK00FNBRDEK2@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:51:18 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:49:27 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Part Question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Glen Ashton Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , Mark Horton Message-id: <002701c1d4ab$987539c0$244f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <001801c1d47c$e2d3f760$0100a8c0@ETM3> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I will not comment on this question it is fairly unimportant, as a TD you have to make a decision and a ruling and although there might be other opinions, IMHO your ruling should be final.Unfortunately this is not the case in bridge. I hope you"ll excuse me for using this opportunity to return to what I tried to do more than 10 years ago namely to convince the President of the WBF of the necessity for a much simpler code of Laws for duplicate club [recreational} bridge . I"ll not at this stage voice my opinion on these LAWS but I'll say that to enforce these Laws on novices or intermediates (does intermediate still mean 'he does not trump your aces) is to me unimaginable ,unless you want to drive them away. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum Tel Aviv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Glen Ashton" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:15 AM Subject: [BLML] Part Question > You direct in ACBL land and arrive at the table to best determine these > facts: > > The bidding started one club opening, two club overcall. The > overcaller's partner alerted the cuebid. Responder began to ask what > the cuebid was, beginning with "What is tha...". At the very same time > the overcaller stated to partner that "cuebids are not alertable" (which > is true in ACBL land at least). Responder (a relative rookie) then did > not complete question or restate it. Both opener and responder assume > overcaller has a Michael's cuebid with both majors. Instead overcaller > had spades and diamonds (top and bottom) so a good heart contract was > missed. The director is called at the completion of play, when > overcaller's hand type is fully realized. Overcaller and partner are > very experienced players. Opener and responder are novice/intermediate. > > > How do you go about ruling on this hand? > > Glen Ashton > My bridge stuff: www.bridgematters.com > www.GlenAshton.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 Tue Mar 26 21:47:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QAjM900075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:45:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2QAjDH00052 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:45:14 +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 LAA22589; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:31:58 +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 LAA21225; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:34:36 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020326113019.00a55750@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 11:39:29 +0100 To: "Glen Ashton" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Part Question In-Reply-To: <001801c1d47c$e2d3f760$0100a8c0@ETM3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:15 25/03/2002 -0500, Glen Ashton wrote: >You direct in ACBL land and arrive at the table to best determine these >facts: > >The bidding started one club opening, two club overcall. The >overcaller's partner alerted the cuebid. Responder began to ask what >the cuebid was, beginning with "What is tha...". At the very same time >the overcaller stated to partner that "cuebids are not alertable" (which >is true in ACBL land at least). Responder (a relative rookie) then did >not complete question or restate it. Both opener and responder assume >overcaller has a Michael's cuebid with both majors. Instead overcaller >had spades and diamonds (top and bottom) so a good heart contract was >missed. The director is called at the completion of play, when >overcaller's hand type is fully realized. Overcaller and partner are >very experienced players. Opener and responder are novice/intermediate. > > >How do you go about ruling on this hand? AG : the fact that cue-bids are not alertable does not mean that they are not explainable. Since responder clearly wanted to know what the meaning was, he should have been told it. Why he let the opponents awe him into not recieving it, and was content with it, I can't know withour more explanation. Anyway : 1) overcaller's reaction is improper, and deserves a penalty in itself (players are not expected to mention the rules, let alone dictate them). 2) opener and responder may try to guess what the 2C bid meant, but it wasn't a good idea. Instead, they should insist on getting an explanation. There is a hint that the overcaller didn't want to see the bid explained, which is fishy if you're polite and sharp above all recognition if you are realistic. 3) if the opener's side are novices or inexperimented, as you mention it, I would put 100% of the blame on the overcaller's side, whose intimidating tactics (let's remain polite) were grossly improper. I'll then try and assign an adjusted score along to L12 specifications. If both sides were experimented, they are both guilty and I would treat both of them as offending sides and award a split score(opener's side gets its table result, the other side does receive the rersult for the normal contract). 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 Mar 26 22:11:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QB9AK02610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:09:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2QB90H02594 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:09:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.107]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTK00DC4UH6E3@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:58:21 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:56:04 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , Mark Horton Message-id: <005401c1d4b4$f5048340$244f003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net> <00a001c1d448$ffba0740$d916b9d2@laptop> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You are playing around with words '' explicit, implicit as surprising etc" O.K. so you have to use words ,and unfortunately words can have different meanings. I"ll try to describe the problem and you find the right words to deal with it. One part of the problem is when you know that your partner is apt to psyche you are protecting yourself . when you are playing with A who never psyches with B who psyches once in a month and C who may psyche once every 2/3 sessions you bid differently with each of them (in certain occasions) if you don't you are simply a bad player. Now you decide what are your moral, ethical , legal obligations towards your opponents. Now that too depends who your opponents are? If they are yor team mates IMO none even though they may call the TD on you. If they are experts take care of your legal obligations ,they"ll call the TD. Now what about novices and intermediates ,you should bend backwards to explain all the possibilities .BTW if you do psyche against them, I hope that you get a cold bottom. And I haven't even started talking about a whole world of people playing bridge, playing duplicate ----bridge .I didn't say bridge players . I"ll leave it for another post if you're interested. Cheers Israel- Original Message ----- From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 1:15 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > At 05:24 PM 3/22/02, Sven wrote: > > > > > > > Law40A: A player may make any call or play (including an > > > intentionally > > > > > misleading > > > > > call - such as a psychic bid - ..... > > > > > > > > > > This law explicitly includes psyches, but it does not limit the > > > freedom > > >to > > > > > psyches. The only limitation expressed by this law can be > formulated: > > > > > The deviation from possible agreements shall be as surprising to > > > partner > > > > > as it is to opponents. > > > > > > > > I don't agree. There are many reasons why partner will be less > > > surprised. > > > > > >Yes, and the usual reason is partnership experience which immediately > > >makes the psyche illegal. (As you stated in your next sentence) > > > > > > > IMO the only restriction that can be deduced from law happens if > > > and when > > >a > > > > psyche stops being a psyche and becomes a part of your partnership > > > > agreements. > > > > Let us not err by assuming that for a psych to be "less surprising to > > partner than to opponents" necessarily means that there is some kind of > > implicit or concealed understanding. > > Absolutely! > > > > > I can imagine playing with a total stranger whom I met just before game > > time. I know only that he is in his 60s, and likes to play > > straightforward, seat-of-the-pants bidding methods. We sit down > > against two thirty-somethings playing an elaborate, super-scientific > > method. I hear 1H-X-?, and choose to make what, 40 years ago, would > > have been a "routine" 1S psych holding xx/Kxxxx/Jxx/xxx. Based purely > > on a predictable mental set that reflects one's overall view of the > > game, I can be confident that my psych will be "less surprising" to my > > partner than to my opponents. But this doesn't mean we have an > > agreement of any kind. Or does it? > > This is difficult. > > Clearly you have no explicit agreement. > > You may have an implicit agreement. > > This however creates a problem: What happens when you (or your partner) > assumes you have an implicit agreement but you do not. In your example, for > example, it turns out that your 60-something partner has never psyched in > his life and thoroughly disapproves of partner psyching. > > Potenially you create problems when you assume an implicit agreement when > there is not one. > > > Wayne > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 26 22:15:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QBEHG03167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:14:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2QBE8H03153 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:14:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.107]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTK00DH1UPQFD@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:03:28 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:02:07 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] addresses To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <005801c1d4b5$aca5ca40$244f003e@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: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_TGfV+5okkFNUZt3ABEB8aA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_TGfV+5okkFNUZt3ABEB8aA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sir I am not sure what you meant .I am doing things without exactly knowing whether it is the right way . Please tell me if the way I address my messages is right. Israel --Boundary_(ID_TGfV+5okkFNUZt3ABEB8aA) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Sir
I am not sure what you meant .I am doing things without exactly knowing whether it is the right way . Please tell me if the way I address my messages is right.
Israel
--Boundary_(ID_TGfV+5okkFNUZt3ABEB8aA)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 26 22:50:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QBmXl06689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:48:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2QBmNH06676 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:48:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.23]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTK00G5CWAQ7Z@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:37:41 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:25:35 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Marvin L. French" Cc: Mark Horton , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <00c301c1d4ba$753815e0$244f003e@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=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c1d490$4fa24be0$2aa0403e@dodona> <001a01c1d49b$e825df20$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I hope this adds force to my arguments for a special set of Laws for recreational duplicate bridge, not an Olympic sport not even a mind sport , a mind recreational game. So the lamb lives and the wolf is satisfied. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum Tel Aviv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > From: "Marvin L. French" . > > > > > > I believe another requirement for recognition is a universal set > > > of Laws or Rules, not varying according to political boundaries. > > > > +=+ An NBO is an affiliate of the WBF. > > A ZO is a limb of the WBF. > > Olympic recognition will import > > fresh responsibilities, but it is premature > > to judge how these will apply in a "mind > > sport". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > From the IOC website: > > The International Federations (IFs) are international non-governmental > organisations recognised by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as > administering one or more sports at world level. The national federations > administering those sports are affiliated to them. While conserving their > independence and autonomy in the administration of their sports, International > Sports Federations seeking IOC recognition must ensure that their statutes, > practice and activities conform with the Olympic Charter. > > From the Olympic Charter: > > 30 - Role of the IFs is to: > 1.1 establish and enforce, in accordance with the Olympic spirit, the rules > concerning the practice of their respective sports and to ensure their > application. > > This is all in accord with the WBF By-Laws, which say that the WBFLC is > responsible for creating and interpreting the Laws of Contract Bridge. That's > good, because I don't see that the IOC would be likely to change the Olympic > Charter to make special provisions for "mind sports." > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Mar 26 23:21:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QCJpt09880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:19:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2QCJhH09861 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:19:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 21565 invoked by uid 504); 26 Mar 2002 12:09:05 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 2.021771 secs); 26 Mar 2002 12:09:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.136) by 0 with SMTP; 26 Mar 2002 12:09:03 -0000 Message-ID: <002801c1d4be$8d627800$8816b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net><00a001c1d448$ffba0740$d916b9d2@laptop> <005401c1d4b4$f5048340$244f003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:05:40 +1200 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: Israel Erdnbaum To: ; Wayne Burrows Cc: Israel Erdenbaum ; Mark Horton Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > You are playing around with words '' explicit, implicit as surprising etc" I don't think I am. > O.K. so you have to use words ,and unfortunately words can have different > meanings. I"ll try to describe the problem and you find the right words to > deal with it. One part of the problem is when you know that your partner is > apt to psyche you are protecting yourself . when you are playing with A who > never psyches with B who psyches once in a month and C who may psyche once > every 2/3 sessions you bid differently with each of them (in certain > occasions) if you don't you are simply a bad player. Now you decide what are > your moral, ethical , legal obligations towards your opponents. Now that > too depends who your opponents are? If they are yor team mates IMO none even > though they may call the TD on you. If they are experts take care of your > legal obligations ,they"ll call the TD. Now what about novices and > intermediates ,you should bend backwards to explain all the possibilities I will explain my explicit agreements. I will explain my implicit agreements (to the best of my ability - I have some reservations about the practical ability of any player or partnership to accurately disclose implicit agreements). I will give other information gained from partnership experience in response to a question. This will not include general bridge knowledge. I will not take kindly to being told I have a partnership agreement when I do not. > .BTW if you do psyche against them, I hope that you get a cold bottom. Why? Psyching is part of the game. Maybe if novices were exposed to this tactic earlier then they would more readily accept the concept. In my experience those that don't accept psyches as part of the game are more likely to be experienced players who are stuck in a rut. I do not psyche often - once a month if I am lucky and probably closer to once every three to six months (twice in the first three months of this year). After a recent psyche against a Grand Master and her experienced partner they left the table muttering "If that's how you play bridge I don't know why we bother". IMO this is the attitude that causes problems. Contrast this with the novice partner who thought it was hilarious when she raised my third seat 1h opener to game and I went off for a poor score having neither hearts nor the values commonly accepted for an opening bid. 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 Mar 26 23:37:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QCa5H11588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:36:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g2QCZqH11565 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:35:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.22.138] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16pq0b-0001Sb-00; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:25:01 +0000 Message-ID: <008601c1d4c1$4abc0fe0$c438e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <002701c1d490$4fa24be0$2aa0403e@dodona> <63a0augoq13ctu9upjrkmqv8jbj9qsj22t@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:13:38 -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 > > I share Marv's belief that there is an IOC > requirement for a single world-wide set of > rules enforced by the relevant international > organisation. It seems that the particular > sport in question is not seen as relevant - > or at least, from what reading I've done, I'm > unable to find any listed exceptions. > > Does the WBF have some grounds for > believing that there is a possibility that the > IOC will waive this requirement in the case > of bridge? . > +=+ No, I do not think so at all. However, the nature of those rules and the degree to which they may allow of flexibility in certain matters, within stated principles, is something yet to be seen. In the meantime we go forward on the field of play as it is currently marked out. ~ 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 Mar 26 23:37:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QCa6611589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:36:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g2QCZrH11567 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:35:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.22.138] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16pq0d-0001Sb-00; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:25:03 +0000 Message-ID: <008701c1d4c1$4bb7d500$c438e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Tim Westmead" , Cc: "Tim Westmead" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:24:22 -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: Cc: Sent: 25 March 2002 18:10 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > In-Reply-To: <000401c1d418$1f913c40$0733e150@pacific> > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ It is legitimate to trust the regulator to regulate > > for its own tournaments. > > The evidence, from Austria, ACBL, and EBU, sadly > indicates the opposite. > +=+ That is all a point of view. There would be a number who would agree with you, but it is not the view of the upper hierarchy, and even where we think to progress it is our view, and the wish of the WBF President, that we should preach and persuade but not impose. +=+ > > > And when WBF > > authority establishes a position it may be arguable > > but it is not 'obvious' that the contrary view of an > > individual should be entertained. > > Are you seriously suggesting that when L40D was > written the legislators intended that it be used to > prevent psyches in total contradiction to the clearly > expressed desire of L40A. I'm sorry but get real! > +=+ I am sure you are sincere, but you do go on a bit. No, the question was not even considered in the drafting; but later when the subject came up the WBF did discuss it and make its mind up; I have reported the outcome. So you may think it unreal, but it is factual and you will simply have to live with it. We may discuss it again, there may be some suggestion of changing it, but given the number of major organizations that have built it into the fabric of their longstanding regulations, I doubt it will change. ~ 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 Mar 26 23:51:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QCnf513025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:49:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2QCnUH13004 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:49:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1566.bb.online.no [80.212.214.30]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA01421; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:38:47 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001701c1d4c3$2c87e7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3CA03577.7090005@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 13:38:46 +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: "Herman De Wael" ..... > I believe Nuremberg told us that people merely following orders were > not to be blamed, only those giving the orders. But that is hardly > the point, is it ? It is definitely not the point, but I believe you also got that wrong: Nürnberg stated that being under order is no acceptable excuse for criminal acts. 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 Mar 27 00:25:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QDNPG16525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:23:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2QDNGH16510 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:23:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16pqki-0005BI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:12:40 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020326080821.00b6a860@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:14:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] How far can UI affect your bid? In-Reply-To: <005401c1d43b$3b125260$7c50dec2@paul> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:25 PM 3/25/02, Paul wrote: >Playing in a reasonably strong County event, one of my teammates had the >following problem: > >Board 17. IMPS; Love All; Dealer N > >South: S:T97 H:K87 D:K C:AKQT64 > >North East South West >Pass 1NT (1) Dbl (2) Redbl (3) >Pass Pass ?? > >(1) Strong NT; 15-17 >(2) Intended as a penalty double, but alerted >(3) West asks & North says it the majors. Redouble is to play. > >He now woke up & realised partner had given the correct explanation of >his defence to a Strong NT. > >An ethical player, he was aware of the constraints due to UI and that he >was not allowed to "wake up" and duly passed as he believed this to be >the only LA. I agree, and would do the same. >However, discussing this afterwards (in the bar), it was suggested that >there is a case that South had unauthorised information in that North >has not bid a major, making it more likely that the clubs were likely to >run. So if 1NT had gone down would EW have a case that South should have >bid 2C? 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 Wed Mar 27 00:38:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QDax517924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:36:59 +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 g2QDaoH17905 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:36:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16pqxq-0006od-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:26:15 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020326082406.00b66d30@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:27:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <003001c1d444$d9756a60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@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 04:34 PM 3/25/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" >..... > > Let us not err by assuming that for a psych to be "less surprising to > > partner than to opponents" necessarily means that there is some > kind of > > implicit or concealed understanding. > > > > I can imagine playing with a total stranger whom I met just before > game > > time. I know only that he is in his 60s, and likes to play > > straightforward, seat-of-the-pants bidding methods. We sit down > > against two thirty-somethings playing an elaborate, super-scientific > > method. I hear 1H-X-?, and choose to make what, 40 years ago, would > > have been a "routine" 1S psych holding xx/Kxxxx/Jxx/xxx. Based purely > > on a predictable mental set that reflects one's overall view of the > > game, I can be confident that my psych will be "less surprising" to my > > partner than to my opponents. But this doesn't mean we have an > > agreement of any kind. Or does it? > >As a matter of fact it does. >Your expectations of this partner is (according to your own statement) >dependent upon your knowledge of his particular background. > >That makes your expectations part of an implicit partnership >understanding. Even though my "expectations" are mere suppositions, with no direct evidence to support them, and could, as I'm well aware, be completely wrong? I don't see how this can reach the threshold of an "understanding". 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 Mar 27 01:06:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QE5sh20969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:05:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2QE5kH20952 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:05:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16prPr-00033D-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:55:11 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 08:56:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <3CA033AE.3010102@village.uunet.be> References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@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 03:39 AM 3/26/02, Herman wrote: >You are wrong in believing that this group equals the WBF. Some >members of the WBFLC, but not all, read this group, but hardly with >the interest that you believe. I called this forum one "in which some with influence in the WBF participate". I am well aware that this isn't the same thing as being the WBF. >And there really is no discussion. >Wayne believes the regulation to be illegal. Some agree, some don't. And so Wayne states his case, those that agree support his position, and those that disagree oppose his position -- with the exception of those who prefer to contribute only "I'm right; you're wrong; therefore there's no point in discussing this any more, so shut up." Except for the last, that sounds like productive discussion to me. >But there is nothing we can do - the regulation is there and we (you) >have to argue someplace else about changing it. Us discussing whether >or not it is legal has no influence on that. Argue someplace else? I guess poor Wayne will just have to find himself a forum devoted to discussing of the laws of bridge. Does anybody know of one? 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 Mar 27 02:34:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QFWIg01947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:32:18 +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 g2QFW9H01919 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:32:10 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2QFLXW05746 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:21:33 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:21 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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: <008701c1d4c1$4bb7d500$c438e150@pacific> Grattan wrote: > +=+ I am sure you are sincere, but you do go on a bit. > No, the question was not even considered in the > drafting; but later when the subject came up the > WBF did discuss it and make its mind up; I have > reported the outcome. So you may think it unreal, but > it is factual and you will simply have to live with it. True I have to live with it - but not without complaining. I felt it possible that the WBF had considered their interpretation in the context of restricting some readily defined situations. It saddens me greatly that WBF really decided to give NBOs/ZOs the authority to prevent all psyching. While it is a relatively minor aspect of the game I do feel that excluding it is deeply damaging to the whole structure, as well as creating further divisions between duplicate and rubber bridge. > We may discuss it again, there may be some > suggestion of changing it, but given the number of > major organizations that have built it into the fabric > of their longstanding regulations, I doubt it will > change. In the light of the bid for Olympic recognition it may be that the WBF would actually wish to review certain things. Preaching and persuasion are great things to use when trying to deal with the NBOs - but perhaps it needs to be formally acknowledged by all sides that where these fail to obtain a result the WBF will indeed resort to enforcement/sanction. Surely we do not want a situation where a single NBO effectively controls the actions of the WBF. As to longstanding regulations, the way the ACBL has regulated against the 10-12 NT is recognised, even by them, as a back door. Would they not be better served by saying "Where a partnership upgrades/downgrades certain counts when evaluating their NT the pair concerned should provide clearly understandable details of the contexts/hand types where such upgrades are considered. Note that if such upgrades cover more than 15% of hands the range presented on the cc should make this immediately apparent". The Austrian ban on psyches, etc was not made under the auspices of 40D and wouldn't be affected. I had initial concerns about the EBU's apparent restriction on judgment when it comes to 1NT openings but it on pursuing the matter found that despite the words in the Orange Book such judgement is still permitted (subject to proper disclosure). A statement from the WBF that "L40D may not be used to restrict psyching* or natural bids within a King of average strength" *should* be acceptable to all. *As a compromise they may have to insert "of natural calls" here - although my personal preference would be that they didn't. 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 Mar 27 02:50:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QFnHT04466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:49:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (mailout05.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2QFn8H04451 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 02:49:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16psvC-0000c9-02; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:31:38 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.54.213]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16psuw-2CgxKCC; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:31:22 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA09449.FBDFCE16@t-online.de> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:31:21 +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: Eric Landau , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau schrieb: > > At 03:39 AM 3/26/02, Herman wrote: > > >You are wrong in believing that this group equals the WBF. Some > >members of the WBFLC, but not all, read this group, but hardly with > >the interest that you believe. > > I called this forum one "in which some with influence in the WBF > participate". I am well aware that this isn't the same thing as being > the WBF. > > >And there really is no discussion. > >Wayne believes the regulation to be illegal. Some agree, some don't. > > And so Wayne states his case, those that agree support his position, > and those that disagree oppose his position -- with the exception of > those who prefer to contribute only "I'm right; you're wrong; therefore > there's no point in discussing this any more, so shut up." Except for > the last, that sounds like productive discussion to me. > > >But there is nothing we can do - the regulation is there and we (you) > >have to argue someplace else about changing it. Us discussing whether > >or not it is legal has no influence on that. > > Argue someplace else? I guess poor Wayne will just have to find > himself a forum devoted to discussing of the laws of bridge. Does > anybody know of one? > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > Come on now, you know quite well what Herman says, don`t you? Of course this forum is a place to discuss things, it`s just not a place to CHANGE things. This has to be done elsewhere if the need arises. 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 Wed Mar 27 03:28:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QGQQ808543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 03:26:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2QGQHH08529 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 03:26:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95827.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.83] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2QGFOr22997 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:15:24 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA09ECB.1090403@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:16:11 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@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 Sorry, Eric, Wayne, if you misunderstood me. Eric Landau wrote: > At 03:39 AM 3/26/02, Herman wrote: > >> You are wrong in believing that this group equals the WBF. Some >> members of the WBFLC, but not all, read this group, but hardly with >> the interest that you believe. > > > I called this forum one "in which some with influence in the WBF > participate". I am well aware that this isn't the same thing as being > the WBF. > >> And there really is no discussion. >> Wayne believes the regulation to be illegal. Some agree, some don't. > > > And so Wayne states his case, those that agree support his position, and > those that disagree oppose his position -- with the exception of those > who prefer to contribute only "I'm right; you're wrong; therefore > there's no point in discussing this any more, so shut up." Except for > the last, that sounds like productive discussion to me. > >> But there is nothing we can do - the regulation is there and we (you) >> have to argue someplace else about changing it. Us discussing whether >> or not it is legal has no influence on that. > > > Argue someplace else? I guess poor Wayne will just have to find himself > a forum devoted to discussing of the laws of bridge. Does anybody know > of one? > No of course this discussion should be held here. But what is there to discuss ? According to some, this kind of regulation is illegal. I may even agree with that. But the regulation is there anyway. So what is the point discussing this, here? The regulation is still there, and must be applied. Just saying that it is illegal gets you nowhere fast. > > 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 Mar 27 03:29:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QGRmg08693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 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 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 g2QGReH08679 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 03:27:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.17.103] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16ptd0-000P6m-00; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:16:54 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c1d4e1$ac4333e0$6711e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:15:05 -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 Discussion List" Sent: 26 March 2002 13:56 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > At 03:39 AM 3/26/02, Herman wrote: > > >You are wrong in believing that this group equals the WBF. Some > >members of the WBFLC, but not all, read this group, but hardly with > >the interest that you believe. > > >But there is nothing we can do - the regulation is > >there and we (you) have to argue someplace > >else about changing it. Us discussing whether > >or not it is legal has no influence on that. > > Argue someplace else? I guess poor Wayne > will just have to find himself a forum devoted to > discussing of the laws of bridge. Does > anybody know of one? > +=+ Speaking only for myself: I am usually interested in the first contributions (of each), including those I find tiresome in their repetition of their views. As the discussion goes round and round I look at the latest contributions of one or two select. Every subject that comes up gets thought about as to its potential for the General Laws Review, even though at this stage we are only really waiting for submissions from some Zonal Organizations. In this recent thread my chief concern has been to establish the WBF position, which is - for the time being - the definitive one IMO, regardless of my personal inclinations. Where I have expressed a personal view I have said so (unfailingly I think). ~ 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 Mar 27 04:31:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QHT8r14981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:29:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2QHSxH14965 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:29:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.194]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTL00HGAC2DRW@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 19:18:17 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:47:40 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Matthias Berghaus Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <006c01c1d4ea$09ef5480$c24d003e@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: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <3CA09449.FBDFCE16@t-online.de> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What makes governing bodies change rules is players (clients- paying clients} not being ready to play under those rules.That's why the WBF does not impose it's rules on SO, and that's why I hope the WBF will see the light and make the effort (it needs a very big effort) to promote a much simpler set of Laws for recreational bridge. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Eric Landau" ; "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 5:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > Eric Landau schrieb: > > > > At 03:39 AM 3/26/02, Herman wrote: > > > > >You are wrong in believing that this group equals the WBF. Some > > >members of the WBFLC, but not all, read this group, but hardly with > > >the interest that you believe. > > > > I called this forum one "in which some with influence in the WBF > > participate". I am well aware that this isn't the same thing as being > > the WBF. > > > > >And there really is no discussion. > > >Wayne believes the regulation to be illegal. Some agree, some don't. > > > > And so Wayne states his case, those that agree support his position, > > and those that disagree oppose his position -- with the exception of > > those who prefer to contribute only "I'm right; you're wrong; therefore > > there's no point in discussing this any more, so shut up." Except for > > the last, that sounds like productive discussion to me. > > > > >But there is nothing we can do - the regulation is there and we (you) > > >have to argue someplace else about changing it. Us discussing whether > > >or not it is legal has no influence on that. > > > > Argue someplace else? I guess poor Wayne will just have to find > > himself a forum devoted to discussing of the laws of bridge. Does > > anybody know of one? > > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > Come on now, you know quite well what Herman says, don`t you? Of course > this forum is a place to discuss things, it`s just not a place to CHANGE > things. This has to be done elsewhere if the need arises. > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 27 04:45:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QHiDl16492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:44:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (mailout05.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2QHi4H16476 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 04:44:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16pto2-0000Cf-0F; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:28:18 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.56.215]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16ptnv-22dZS4C; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:28:11 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA0A19A.A3D8D724@t-online.de> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:28:10 +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: Wayne Burrows CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net><00a001c1d448$ffba0740$d916b9d2@laptop> <005401c1d4b4$f5048340$244f003e@erdnbaum> <002801c1d4be$8d627800$8816b9d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows schrieb: > > Psyching is part of the game. Maybe if novices were exposed to this tactic > earlier then they would more readily accept the concept. Maybe. Then again, maybe not. My belief is that novices have enough to think about with the bidding and the play of the cards and don`t really need other factors to worry about. Once they get over this stage you may have a case, but I don`t see a way to prove or disprove this. > In my experience those that don't accept psyches as part of the game are > more likely to be experienced players who are stuck in a rut. This is completely at odds with my experiences. Hereabouts it`s mostly elder players with lots of routine but not lots of skill who resent psyching. They feel cheated, and this is the problem. It drives people away from bridge, and this is what the regulations you and others attack so vehemently are meant to prevent. No really experienced (how can you be really experinced when you lack the experience of having to handle a psyche, regardless of which of your three opponents is responsible?) player here has a problem with psyches. Fortunately most know which time to pick: when your opponent is not someone likely to blow a fuse. There is such a thing as Law 74A2. > I do not > psyche often - once a month if I am lucky and probably closer to once every > three to six months (twice in the first three months of this year). There are people who think once in a lifetime is excessive. This is a matter of personal taste, temperament, whatever. Supposedly every player is happy with his frequency of psyches. Partners and opponents are another matter, though. > After a > recent psyche against a Grand Master and her experienced partner they left > the table muttering "If that's how you play bridge I don't know why we > bother". IMO this is the attitude that causes problems. Well,partly. The other side of the medal is the attitude that people are willing to fight for THEIR views, but tend to disregard the people who don`t share their views. This goes for both camps, of course. In this case you and a couple of others share the view that any attempt to regulate psyches is either distasteful or illegal or both, and that any regulation takes away the fun of the game. If you will look at the Grand Master you cited you will find that his fun has been taken away too. Who is right? Is anyone right? Or is it rather a question of coexistence and tolerance? Someone said: "The personal freedom of any person ends where the personal freedom of another person begins." This Grand Master isn`t the only bridge player with a opinion on psyching. Most people have an opinion. Just not the same. Some people bristle at the thought that someone tries to regulate their attempts at creative bidding, others think this regulations don`t go far enough, and most couldn`t care less. All these people have to be kept as happy as possible by the WBF and their zonal/national organisations; not a job I would want to have. FWIW, in the two countries I have played in with such regulations in existence (Austria and Germany) I have heard exactly ZERO players complain about this regulations, and this goes both ways. In fact no player in any of the events in which this regulations are in effect have any interest in psyching. Anyone who tries a psyche is either fairly good or trying to get better, in any case he has no interest in such an event. So the psychers are are not really regulated or under control or whatever, and the non-psychers feel happy and safe. WHAT`S THE PROBLEM?? > Contrast this with > the novice partner who thought it was hilarious when she raised my third > seat 1h opener to game and I went off for a poor score having neither hearts > nor the values commonly accepted for an opening bid. Good for your novice. If she has an open mind and understands what has happened, and understands that psyches are a part of the game ( let`s call it a club in the bag of some people but not of others, not everyone uses a 3-wood) she will not be a novice very long. In fact I doubt wether our mental pictures of novices are really congruent, but I think I got what you tried to say. I think we are agreed that psyches are part of the game of bridge and should remain so, but some people just do not want to own this particular club. It`s quite astonishing to me that a Grand Master has said the words you cited ( I don`t doubt your word, don`t misunderstand me), he should certainly know better, but you should take it as proof that some people see psyches as something they can do without. We can`t ignore their opinion any more than we can ignore yours, we have to live with both and in the long run have to find a way how he and you can get along. Not easy. > Wayne > 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 Wed Mar 27 09:30:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QMSY515787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:28:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2QMSQH15766 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:28:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16pzGI-0000kF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:17:50 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020326171455.00b7a7d0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:19:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <3CA03577.7090005@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 03:46 AM 3/26/02, Herman wrote: >I believe Nuremberg told us that people merely following orders were >not to be blamed, only those giving the orders. But that is hardly >the point, is it ? I don't see how it's relevant to the subject at hand, but JFTR that is very wrong. Exactly the opposite; the defendents at Nuremberg argued that they were not guilty of perpetrating the holocaust because they had no choice but to follow Hitler's orders. The tribunal ruled that, while true, that didn't affect their culpability, and convicted and hanged them. Since Nuremberg, it has been an established principle of U.S. (and, I would assume, just about every other country's as well) military justice that a soldier not only may, but must, ignore an order from a superior that he knows to be 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 Mar 27 09:48:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QMkNP17670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:46:23 +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 g2QMkEH17653 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:46:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16pzXW-0004Ki-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:35:38 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020326172548.00ab3170@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:37:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <3CA09449.FBDFCE16@t-online.de> References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@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 10:31 AM 3/26/02, ziffbridge wrote: >Come on now, you know quite well what Herman says, don`t you? Of course >this forum is a place to discuss things, it`s just not a place to CHANGE >things. This has to be done elsewhere if the need arises. But Wayne is no more the WBF than BLML is. He cannot wave his wand and change the laws. If he believes that the law should change, his only way of accomplishing that is to "discuss things" with those who do have influence over the laws, hoping to convince them of the need for change. Of course this forum is a place to discuss things; it's not, as some seem to want it to be, merely a place for those in power to make pronouncements as to how things are and must be without listening, and for those not in power to listen to and accept those pronouncements without speaking. We are very fortunate that we have members of BLML who do have influence over the laws, and who do listen to, if not always agree with, the powerless mere mortals among us. 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 Mar 27 10:25:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2QNNMF21626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:23:22 +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 g2QNNCH21612 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:23:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16q07H-000451-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:12:35 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:14:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <3CA09ECB.1090403@village.uunet.be> References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@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 11:16 AM 3/26/02, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > >>Argue someplace else? I guess poor Wayne will just have to find >>himself a forum devoted to discussing of the laws of bridge. Does >>anybody know of one? > >No of course this discussion should be held here. >But what is there to discuss ? >According to some, this kind of regulation is illegal. >I may even agree with that. >But the regulation is there anyway. >So what is the point discussing this, here? >The regulation is still there, and must be applied. >Just saying that it is illegal gets you nowhere fast. I agree, but that seems implicitly rather harsh on Wayne. He has done far more than "just say[] that it is illegal". He has offered citations, analyzed wording, even offered a quantitative analysis of what constitutes "average strength". If he can convince certain members of this forum that he is right, he has gotten to where he can go on to try to convince them that they should try to do something about it. I worry that the latter may meet with far more practical difficulty than the former. Of course, Wayne is technically wrong. The WBF has made clear that it considers the Austrian rule legal. But Wayne's argument strongly suggests that while it may conform to the letter of the Law, it does violence to the spirit of the Law. The real job is to convince the WBF that when some NCBO's technically legal practice violates the spirit of the law, the law should be changed to plug the loophole. Regrettably, the history of L40D and the 9-point 1NT opening suggests that the WBF feels exactly the opposite, that when a (powerful enough) NCBO wishes to violate the spirit of the law but can't find a loophole through which to do so, the WBF will create one for them. The serious practical issue is whether the WBF really has the power to regulate how the game of bridge is played or serves merely as a loose confederation of member organizations who retain that power to themselves. 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 Mar 27 11:44:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2R0fIc00666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:41:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2R0f9H00645 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:41:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd10.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16q1Kh-0002Od-00; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:30:31 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.82.208.192]) by fwd10.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16q1KV-0R3wQqC; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:30:19 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA11299.DF95C411@t-online.de> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 01:30:17 +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: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326172548.00ab3170@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau schrieb: > > At 10:31 AM 3/26/02, ziffbridge wrote: > > >Come on now, you know quite well what Herman says, don`t you? Of course > >this forum is a place to discuss things, it`s just not a place to CHANGE > >things. This has to be done elsewhere if the need arises. > > But Wayne is no more the WBF than BLML is. He cannot wave his wand and > change the laws. If he believes that the law should change, his only > way of accomplishing that is to "discuss things" with those who do have > influence over the laws, hoping to convince them of the need for change. Sure. He can discuss this as long as he likes.We are discussing this here, too. I happen to agree with Herman that the discussion on BLML will not change the facts, but I agree with you (and others) that this should not necessarily end the discussion. I have had an exchange of mails with a couple of BLMLists this evening ( not over the list) and the most important may have been a mail from Gordon Bower. He had got the impression (Maybe a problem with translations) that psyching was banned in all events under the auspices of the Austrian Bridge Federation. THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!! Only in a small number of games (novice games, flighted events (Lowest and second-Lowest level if at least three levels are offered [ I have never come across such a tournament in Austria, they may exist, but they are certainly not the norm]) and club games where the club chooses to adopt this regulation) are these regulations in effect. In Germany it`s even fewer games,I believe (Just an opinion here, no real data). No one in Germany playing in such an event wants to psyche. If you want to do so you play where the regulations (only against psyches of strong openings in Germany) do not apply. Usually this is easy enough. > Of course this forum is a place to discuss things; it's not, as some > seem to want it to be, merely a place for those in power to make > pronouncements as to how things are and must be without listening, and > for those not in power to listen to and accept those pronouncements > without speaking. We are very fortunate that we have members of BLML > who do have influence over the laws, and who do listen to, if not > always agree with, the powerless mere mortals among us. Of course this is the place to discuss things. Maybe even to convince others to iniate changes. I just maintain that our discussions won`t change a thing. Of course they can lead to changes done elsewhere, and I am quite optimistic that a lot of topics discussed on BLML will lead to changes in the Laws in the future. > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > 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 Wed Mar 27 14:56:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2R3rbM22605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:53:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta02bw.bigpond.com (mta02bw.bigpond.com [139.134.6.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2R3rTH22588 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:53:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from master.bigpond.net.au ([144.135.24.75]) by mta02bw.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id GTM4Z700.606 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:42:43 +1000 Received: from CPE-144-137-72-76.nsw.bigpond.net.au ([144.137.72.76]) by bwmam03.mailsvc.email.bigpond.com(MailRouter V3.0i 26/2500998); 27 Mar 2002 13:42:43 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020327144029.00b41b78@bigpond.net.au> X-Sender: ardelm@bigpond.net.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:42:38 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tony Musgrove Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <003201c1d3d2$0f3048a0$ac0ce150@dodona> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From today's column by Ron Klinger: "Your system card says, 'Frequent Psyches'. Do you psyche when vulnerable?" " Actually we never psyche but our bidding is so far removed from normal, we have to have that on our system card." Cheers, Tony (Sydney) At 07:50 AM 25/03/02 +0000, you wrote: >Grattan Endicott~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"There is an Easter energy about it, a >sense of arrival rather than wreckage." > [Seamus Heaney, Irish poet] > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Gordon Bower" >To: >Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:31 PM >Subject: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > > > > > > It was mine, not Michael's, post that originally started the > > thread. I had been disturbed to learn of an Austrian > > regulation that opening a non-rule-of-18 hand in 1st or > > 2nd seat is an automatic 60/40. (There is a separate > > place in their rules where system is discussed; this > > regulation specifically bars this type of psych.) > > > > Notice that this rule appears *in the section on psychic > > bidding*, not in the section on allowable systems. I am > > assured that this rule exists for the express purpose of > > forbidding anyone to psych a natural 1-bid. > > >+=+ It seems more a systemic matter than a psyche to me. > I have never known the WBF intervene in such a matter >except when asked for advice by the NBO or ZA concerned. >The WBF did confirm, upon enquiry by the EBL in 1984/5, >that it is lawful to ban the psyching of a convention under >Law 40D. NBOs subscribe to the By-Laws of the WBF when >they seek membership, so that they undertake to respect >the interpretations of Law by the WBF (by its Laws >Committee subject to ratification by its Executive). For >this reason I have long advocated laws which give >regulators the flexibility to achieve their wishes in the >control of systems, to avoid situations in which the Laws >are evaded. > In my opinion the Austrian regulation does not conform >to the Law as it is. The Rule of Eighteen/Nineteen was >almost certainly invented in Austria - it was Karl Rohan >who brought it forward internationally, and I suspect this >regulation in some form has lingered there ever since. > There are two ways in which the regulation could be >brought within the law: (a) limit the regulation to hands >where the number of HCPs in the hand is less than eight, >or (b) let a regulation read "No conventional call may be >used by a side after it makes any natural opening bid at >the level of One which by partnership agreement may >be in default of the Rule of Eighteen". > I do not think that it would be advantageous to push >the Austrian Federation into adopting, say, (b) above, >which is a regulation of conventions under Law 40D. >Think carefully about the words "may be in default". The >powers in 40D are unrestricted, as the WBFLC >observed in its reply to the EBL mentioned earlier. > ~ 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 Wed Mar 27 18:27:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2R7OfK16464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:24:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2R7OWH16444 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:24:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.86.64] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16q7Yf-0000gI-00; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:09:21 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c1d55f$78bdd240$4056e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:31:55 -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: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > In-Reply-To: <008701c1d4c1$4bb7d500$c438e150@pacific> > > In the light of the bid for Olympic recognition it may be that > the WBF would actually wish to review certain things. Preaching > and persuasion are great things to use when trying to deal with > the NBOs - but perhaps it needs to be formally acknowledged > by all sides that where these fail to obtain a result the WBF will > indeed resort to enforcement/sanction. Surely we do not want a > situation where a single NBO effectively controls the actions of > the WBF. > +=+ Maybe not, but when the policies of the Zonal Organizations of both Zones 1 and 2, at least, incorporate banning of psyches of certain kinds the fact that some NBOs do so as well is a small issue. +=+ > --------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ > > A statement from the WBF that "L40D may not be used to > restrict psyching* or natural bids within a King of average > strength" *should* be acceptable to all. *As a compromise > they may have to insert "of natural calls" here - although my personal preference would be that they didn't. > +=+ Now I am sorely tempted to talk about 'getting real'. Just stop and consider. Each Zone is a part of the WBF, a constituent limb with representation on the Executive Committee. If Zones want to have such regulations who, in the name of Mephistopheles, is going to deny them? There may be one or two who would like to do so - if so, their urges could easily prove to be snow in a fiery furnace. My view, of course, is that we should concede the powers the regulators already exercise, moulding the laws to the success of their practical application. There are other battles to fight, more likely to be won. ~ 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 Mar 27 18:33:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2R7VUo17192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:31:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2R7VKH17175 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:31:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from modem-90.flagfin-angel.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.12.90] helo=4nrw70j) by mail11.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16q7jc-0005Dd-00; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 07:20:41 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c1d55f$b33e52a0$5a0c893e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "Matthias Berghaus" , "Wayne Burrows" Cc: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net><00a001c1d448$ffba0740$d916b9d2@laptop> <005401c1d4b4$f5048340$244f003e@erdnbaum> <002801c1d4be$8d627800$8816b9d2@laptop> <3CA0A19A.A3D8D724@t-online.de> Subject: [BLML] Discord, such sweet thunder. Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 23:14:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Wayne Burrows" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 4:28 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > Most people have an opinion. Just not the same. > > Matthias > -- +=+ At the level of lawmaking and regulation I believe the general opinion is that psyching should be allowed "provided it is done fairly". Of course, some think it is unfair to psyche a conventional opener in a short round, others think it unfair to psyche a strong conventional opener at any time. Some think it unfair to psyche against inexperienced players or, again, against weak players. The lawmakers thought it unfair to psyche on the basis of a partnership understanding without prior disclosure; they also thought it unfair to psyche when, from previous experience, the partner of the psycher has an edge over opponents in recognizing the possibility of a psyche. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Mar 27 19:23:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2R8LTX22791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:21:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2R8LMH22779 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:21:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 28839 invoked by uid 504); 27 Mar 2002 08:10:42 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.951856 secs); 27 Mar 2002 08:10:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.136) by 0 with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 08:10:41 -0000 Message-ID: <009301c1d566$690377e0$e816b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net><4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:07:14 +1200 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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Of course, Wayne is technically wrong. The WBF has made clear that it > considers the Austrian rule legal. "Psychic bids The Rule of 18 In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand much follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is true in both club and A-level events." The WBF has said that this rule is legal??? or The WBF has done nothing about this rule? 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 Mar 27 21:39:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RAciI07040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:38:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2RAcZH07017 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:38:36 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2RARwB23945 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:27:58 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:27 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020326171455.00b7a7d0@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > I don't see how it's relevant to the subject at hand, but JFTR that is > very wrong. Exactly the opposite; the defendents at Nuremberg argued > that they were not guilty of perpetrating the holocaust because they > had no choice but to follow Hitler's orders. The tribunal ruled that, > while true, that didn't affect their culpability, and convicted and > hanged them. Since Nuremberg, it has been an established principle of > U.S. (and, I would assume, just about every other country's as well) > military justice that a soldier not only may, but must, ignore an order > from a superior that he knows to be illegal. We were, I believe, addressing the question "What should a TD do if his club manager/SO tells him to do something against the Laws?". There are no doubt other principles that could be adopted but one could do worse than the above. 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 Mar 27 22:46:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RBjED14157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:45:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2RBj4H14138 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:45:05 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2RBYRJ11040 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:34:27 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:34 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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: <000701c1d55f$78bdd240$4056e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > > A statement from the WBF that "L40D may not be used to > > restrict psyching* or natural bids within a King of average > > strength" *should* be acceptable to all. *As a compromise > > they may have to insert "of natural calls" here - although > my personal preference would be that they didn't. > > > +=+ Now I am sorely tempted to talk about 'getting real'. And yet the statement above (with the asterisked insertion) is exactly what most people would believe on reading the existing laws! > Just stop and consider. Each Zone is a part of the WBF, a > constituent limb with representation on the Executive > Committee. If Zones want to have such regulations who, in > the name of Mephistopheles, is going to deny them? There > may be one or two who would like to do so - if so, their > urges could easily prove to be snow in a fiery furnace. If the Zones want the power to ban psyches and forbid natural light openings I would suggest that the Zones collectively agree to change the laws so that such powers are explicitly granted. Using L40D to achieve through the back door an end which nobody would admit through the front seems underhanded. > My view, of course, is that we should concede the > powers the regulators already exercise, moulding the laws > to the success of their practical application. There are > other battles to fight, more likely to be won. No doubt there are. But if the current approach continues to drive a wedge between the approaches to rubber and duplicate, and leads to increased fragmentation into a series of incompatible geographically aligned areas it may be more important to win the difficult battle than the easy ones. 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 Mar 28 00:21:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RDKTU24483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:20:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2RDKLH24467 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:20:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qDBP-00010t-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:09:43 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020327080327.00ab43e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:11:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <3CA0A19A.A3D8D724@t-online.de> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net> <00a001c1d448$ffba0740$d916b9d2@laptop> <005401c1d4b4$f5048340$244f003e@erdnbaum> <002801c1d4be$8d627800$8816b9d2@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 11:28 AM 3/26/02, ziffbridge wrote: >Good for your novice. If she has an open mind and understands what has >happened, and understands that psyches are a part of the game ( let`s >call it a club in the bag of some people but not of others, not everyone >uses a 3-wood) she will not be a novice very long. In fact I doubt >wether our mental pictures of novices are really congruent, but I think >I got what you tried to say. > >I think we are agreed that psyches are part of the game of bridge and >should remain so, but some people just do not want to own this >particular club. It`s quite astonishing to me that a Grand Master has >said the words you cited ( I don`t doubt your word, don`t misunderstand >me), he should certainly know better, but you should take it as proof >that some people see psyches as something they can do without. We can`t >ignore their opinion any more than we can ignore yours, we have to live >with both and in the long run have to find a way how he and you can get >along. Not easy. I like the golf club analogy. What we have in bridge, though, is a situation in which the majority of players who don't want to own or use a 3-wood also want to make it illegal for anyone else to do so either. And whom, upon being told that a 3-wood is a perfectly legal club, persist in the belief that using it is unsportsmanlike marginal cheating. I wonder if the PGA would react to such a situation by continuing to insist that 3-woods are legal, while at the same time using any legal loophole they could find to write regulations designed to eliminate their use. 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 Mar 28 00:42:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RDfip26927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:41:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2RDfYH26907 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:41:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2RDUv700128 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:30:57 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:30 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020327080327.00ab43e0@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > I wonder if the PGA would react to such a situation by > continuing to insist that 3-woods are legal, while at the same time > using any legal loophole they could find to write regulations designed > to eliminate their use. Haven't you heard! The next US Masters is to be played on a course consisting of 18 170 yard par 3s. Obviously steps have had to be taken to prevent the more experienced players having an unfair advantage. 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 Mar 28 00:45:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RDite27274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:44:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2RDilH27260 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:44:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qDZ4-00045J-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:34:10 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020327081938.00b6bcc0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:35:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <009301c1d566$690377e0$e816b9d2@laptop> References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@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 03:07 AM 3/27/02, Wayne wrote: >The Rule of 18 > >In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand >much follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 >longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may >be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third >seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is >true in both club and A-level events." > >The WBF has said that this rule is legal??? That's how I read Grattan's posts. The WBF has interpreted L40D as granting rather broad regulatory powers to its SOs/ZOs, and the Austrian regulation falls within the scope of those powers. >The WBF has done nothing about this rule? I'm sure there are some who would like be able to, but they have chosen, or been forced, to, in Grattan's words, "concede the powers the regulators already exercise, moulding the laws to the success of their practical application. There are other battles to fight, more likely to be won." IOW, the "lawmakers" of the WBF have chosen not to impose their views of how the game should be played on the Law, but to restrict their role to, essentially, codifying the views of their member organizations. It remains unclear to me whether they do so out of choice or necessity, but in either case it is not an unreasonable position. Whether one likes it or not (and I don't) may well depend on which WBF member organization one belongs to. 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 Mar 28 00:52:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RDpvV28109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:51:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com (mailout07.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2RDplH28092 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:51:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16qDOW-0003IB-01; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:23:16 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[80.135.158.219]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16qDOM-0z8uEiC; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:23:06 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA1C7B7.FE49BD50@t-online.de> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:23:03 +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: Wayne Burrows CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net><4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> <009301c1d566$690377e0$e816b9d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows schrieb: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:14 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > Of course, Wayne is technically wrong. The WBF has made clear that it > > considers the Austrian rule legal. > > "Psychic bids > > The Rule of 18 > > In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand > much follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 > longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may > be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third > seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is > true in both club and A-level events." > > The WBF has said that this rule is legal??? > > or > > The WBF has done nothing about this rule? > > Wayne Just for the record: This translation is not exact. "In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first and second hand must conform to the rule of 18: the sum of HCP and the length of the 2 longest suits must be at least 18. Singleton honours may be counted at full value. In novice games this rule also applies in 3rd seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This regulation also applies in "Club"- and "A"-level flights." Please note: 1. This applies only in pairs events. 2. Opening bids which conform to the rule of 18 are legal in Austria, anytime, anywhere. Jxxxxx,Jxxxxx,A,- is a legal opening bid under this rule.(Shudder) 3. The last sentence does not say anything about ordinary club games, "Treff" (from the Austrian text) refers to the lowest category of players. It is the Austrian/German name for the suit "Clubs" (derived from the French "Trefle")and has nothing to do with bridge-clubs or the like. It is a category most probably related to Masterpoints, I am not 100% sure about this but can certainly find out if it is of interest to you. In any case the last sentence only applies if there are separate flights for these categories at the tournament in question. In any case there is not much to distinguish the "Treff"-player from a rank novice most of the time. A talented novice will probably be the better player, if not today then next Wednesday. Best regards Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 02:26:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RFPlS08565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:25:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2RFPbH08539 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:25:37 +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 QAA26463; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:13:55 +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 QAA18962; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:14:58 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020327161124.00aa5080@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:19:53 +0100 To: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus), Wayne Burrows From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Cc: Bridge Laws Discussion List In-Reply-To: <3CA1C7B7.FE49BD50@t-online.de> References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> <009301c1d566$690377e0$e816b9d2@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 14:23 27/03/2002 +0100, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >Wayne Burrows schrieb: > > >"In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first and second >hand must conform to the rule of 18: the sum of HCP and the length of >the 2 longest suits must be at least 18. Singleton honours may be >counted at full value. In novice games this rule also applies in 3rd >seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This >regulation also applies in "Club"- and "A"-level flights." > >Please note: > >1. This applies only in pairs events. > >2. Opening bids which conform to the rule of 18 are legal in Austria, >anytime, anywhere. Jxxxxx,Jxxxxx,A,- is a legal opening bid under this >rule.(Shudder) AG : or J10xxxx,J10xxxx,A,-, which I would be delighted to open. It is a 6-loser hand, is't it ? Of course, I would open it with 3H (55+ majors, less that 11 HCP, about 6 tricks), but if I didn't have this in my armoury I would be ready to open it with 1S. Why "shudder" ? >3. The last sentence does not say anything about ordinary club games, >"Treff" (from the Austrian text) refers to the lowest category of >players. It is the Austrian/German name for the suit "Clubs" (derived >from the French "Trefle")and has nothing to do with bridge-clubs or the >like. It is a category most probably related to Masterpoints, I am not >100% sure about this but can certainly find out if it is of interest to >you. In any case the last sentence only applies if there are separate >flights for these categories at the tournament in question. > >In any case there is not much to distinguish the "Treff"-player from a >rank novice most of the time. A talented novice will probably be the >better player, if not today then next Wednesday. AG : if I understand it well, pleyers and events are ranked into 4 categories, from Treff to Pik, and as is the case in Bridge Treff are the lowest ranked ? (similar systems apply in France and in Belgium). So it is true you may open an artificial 1S when playing Pik-ranked events, but bot when playin Treff-ranked events. Of course, one should better find other words to avoid confusion. In Belgium, players above 15000 points are ranked according to a "suit" system, but events use a "letter" system - A to G. Systems which allow a 3-card major opening, like the original version of Roman Club, would only be permitted in events ranked D thru G (and only if the cases where such a suit is opened were clearly defined). BSC would only be allowed in F and G. And the Rule of 18 is implemented in events ranked A thru D. Most pairs events are level C or D. Thus it seems the system is similar (as a mathematician, I'd say isomorphic) to the German/Austrian system. It even functions fairly well. 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 Mar 28 03:30:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RGU3V14867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:30:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.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 g2RGTsH14848 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:29:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.1.2] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qG4Q-000GEa-00; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:14:43 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c1d5ab$25ccfec0$0201e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:39:17 -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: Cc: Sent: 27 March 2002 11:34 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > > If the Zones want the power to ban psyches > and forbid natural light openings I would > suggest that the Zones collectively agree to > change the laws so that such powers are > explicitly granted. +=+ Ah! Something we agree on. And the Zones, collectively, are the WBF. ~ 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 Mar 28 04:10:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RH9qt19080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:09:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout07.sul.t-online.com (mailout07.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2RH9hH19063 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:09:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16qGi9-0001il-0E; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:55:45 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.50.242]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16qGi2-17BArAC; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:55:38 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA1F989.CE132F0B@t-online.de> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:55:37 +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: Alain Gottcheiner CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> <009301c1d566$690377e0$e816b9d2@laptop> <5.1.0.14.0.20020327161124.00aa5080@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: y. > > AG : if I understand it well, pleyers and events are ranked into 4 > categories, from Treff to Pik, and as is the case in Bridge Treff are the > lowest ranked ? (similar systems apply in France and in Belgium). Not quite, I believe. As far as I know there are only categories Treff, A, and everyone else. At least Treff and A are the only categories with special prizes and the only categories I ever found mentioned in Austria. > In Belgium, players above 15000 points are ranked according to a "suit" > system, but events use a "letter" system - A to G. Systems which allow a > 3-card major opening, like the original version of Roman Club, would only > be permitted in events ranked D thru G (and only if the cases where such a > suit is opened were clearly defined). BSC would only be allowed in F and G. > And the Rule of 18 is implemented in events ranked A thru D. Most pairs > events are level C or D. Thus it seems the system is similar (as a > mathematician, I'd say isomorphic) to the German/Austrian system. It even > functions fairly well. Germany has "titles" for certain totals of masterpoints, but no ranking system except for a system of qualification points for certain "closed" championships. > Best regards, > > Alain. Best regards Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 04:21:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RHKh420219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:20:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2RHKXH20204 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:20:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2RH9tR14654 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:09:55 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:09 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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: <001901c1d5ab$25ccfec0$0201e150@pacific> Grattan wrote: > > If the Zones want the power to ban psyches > > and forbid natural light openings I would > > suggest that the Zones collectively agree to > > change the laws so that such powers are > > explicitly granted. > > +=+ Ah! Something we agree on. > And the Zones, collectively, are the WBF. And since the WBF did not explictly change the laws to allow the banning of all psyches we can safely assume that they did not want this power - or has L40A been changed while I wasn't looking? 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 Mar 28 06:32:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RJVt810167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:31:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2RJVlH10153 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:31:48 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 20356 invoked by uid 504); 27 Mar 2002 19:21:07 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.167287 secs); 27 Mar 2002 19:21:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.177) by 0 with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 19:21:06 -0000 Message-ID: <006c01c1d5c4$0f287320$b116b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322114628.00a6a950@pop.ulb.ac.be><004701c1d193$234f93e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb><006201c1d1d9$4d905ea0$b116b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020325080103.00b63cc0@pop.starpower.net><00a001c1d448$ffba0740$d916b9d2@laptop><005401c1d4b4$f5048340$244f003e@erdnbaum><002801c1d4be$8d627800$8816b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020327080327.00ab43e0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:17:36 +1200 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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > At 11:28 AM 3/26/02, ziffbridge wrote: > I like the golf club analogy. What we have in bridge, though, is a > situation in which the majority of players who don't want to own or use > a 3-wood also want to make it illegal for anyone else to do so > either. And whom, upon being told that a 3-wood is a perfectly legal > club, persist in the belief that using it is unsportsmanlike marginal > cheating. I wonder if the PGA would react to such a situation by > continuing to insist that 3-woods are legal, while at the same time > using any legal loophole they could find to write regulations designed > to eliminate their use. This is how I play golf: If you use a three wood then every other shot on that hole must be made with a putter. Do others have different rules? 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 Mar 28 06:39:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RJd0m10967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:39:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2RJcqH10954 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:38:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 23072 invoked by uid 504); 27 Mar 2002 19:28:12 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.2306 secs); 27 Mar 2002 19:28:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.177) by 0 with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 19:28:10 -0000 Message-ID: <007401c1d5c5$0c636a40$b116b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net><4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net><4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020327081938.00b6bcc0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:24:41 +1200 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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > At 03:07 AM 3/27/02, Wayne wrote: > > >The Rule of 18 > > > >In all pairs tournaments an opening of 1 of a suit in first or second hand > >much follow the "rule of 18": the sum of the HCP and the length of the 2 > >longest suits must be at least 18. Unsupported honours in short suits may > >be counted for full value. In novice games this rule also applies in third > >seat. Three-card major openings are also forbidden in such games. This is > >true in both club and A-level events." > > > >The WBF has said that this rule is legal??? > > That's how I read Grattan's posts. The WBF has interpreted L40D as > granting rather broad regulatory powers to its SOs/ZOs, and the > Austrian regulation falls within the scope of those powers. The rule of 18 clearly includes hands that are not 'king or more below average' and '3-card majors' are clearly not 'conventional'. There is not even the usual disguise that you can do this but thereafter no conventions. If I am in Austria I shall have to remember that 3-card psyches are forbidden and make sure I only psyche 0, 1 or 2-card suits :-) 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 Mar 28 07:12:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RKC0D16325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:12:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2RKBoH16308 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:11:51 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200203272011.g2RKBoH16308@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 30930 invoked by uid 0); 27 Mar 2002 20:01:08 -0000 Received: from pd9e389a7.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.227.137.167) by mail.gmx.net (mp016-rz3) with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 20:01:08 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: Alain Gottcheiner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:56:44 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020327161124.00aa5080@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3CA1C7B7.FE49BD50@t-online.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.12b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 27 Mar 02, at 16:19, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Thus it seems the system is similar (as a > mathematician, I'd say isomorphic) to the German/Austrian system. It even > functions fairly well. I would say that the german system is quite different since an opening at the first level that does not satisfy the rule of eighteen has to be considered as a HUM system at any level and in any seat with all following restrictions. ciao stefan kaiserslautern, germany -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 08:23:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RLN8Y25181 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:23:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.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 g2RLMxH25155 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:22:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.33.92] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qKiB-0004iP-00; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 21:12:03 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c1d5d4$9915a480$5c21e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:50:06 -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: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > In-Reply-To: <001901c1d5ab$25ccfec0$0201e150@pacific> > Grattan wrote: > > > > If the Zones want the power to ban psyches > > > and forbid natural light openings I would > > > suggest that the Zones collectively agree to > > > change the laws so that such powers are > > > explicitly granted. > > > > +=+ Ah! Something we agree on. > > And the Zones, collectively, are the WBF. > > And since the WBF did not explictly change the laws to > allow the banning of all psyches we can safely assume > that they did not want this power - or has L40A been > changed while I wasn't looking? > > Tim > +=+ Oh get along with you..... you know only too well that under the bylaws the WBF has delegated to the WBFLC the interpretation of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (and it has not referred back to us a single interpretation we have agreed upon). ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 09:14:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2RMDqn00672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:13:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (mailout05.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2RMDhH00654 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:13:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd09.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16qLVY-0002n0-00; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:03:04 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.82.211.163]) by fwd09.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16qLVO-01uF1sC; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:02:54 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA2418A.855E2B0D@t-online.de> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:02:50 +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 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <3CA1C7B7.FE49BD50@t-online.de> <200203272011.g2RKBoH16308@rgb.anu.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk stefan filonardi schrieb: > > Hello, > > On 27 Mar 02, at 16:19, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > Thus it seems the system is similar (as a > > mathematician, I'd say isomorphic) to the German/Austrian system. It even > > functions fairly well. > > I would say that the german system is quite different since an > opening at the first level that does not satisfy the rule of eighteen > has to be considered as a HUM system at any level and in any seat > with all following restrictions. > > ciao stefan > kaiserslautern, germany > -- This is definitely not the case. Only opening bids that SYSTEMICALLY violate the rule of 18 are considered HUM. If you violate your own systemic agreements by psyching - well, that`s it, just a psyche. Only in system category C or N are opening bids in first or second seat that violate the rule of 18 forbidden. I can`t remember an "N" event, and precious few "C" events. In categories "A" (allowing HUM systems) and "B" (allowing everything except HUMs and Brown Sticker conventions - even Brown Sticker is okay if it`s a teams event and at least 12 boards are played in the match) you can psyche to your hearts desire and all you have to worry about is the registration form for your psyche. Best regards Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 13:46:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2S2jE501018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:45:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2S2j5H01005 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:45:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.61.121] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qPfj-000Fma-00; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:29:51 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c1d601$99692240$793de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net><4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net><4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020327081938.00b6bcc0@pop.starpower.net> <007401c1d5c5$0c636a40$b116b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 02:36:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 7:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eric Landau > To: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:35 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > >The WBF has said that this rule is legal??? > > > > That's how I read Grattan's posts. The WBF has > > interpreted L40D as granting rather broad > > regulatory powers to its SOs/ZOs, and the > > Austrian regulation falls within the scope of > > those powers. > +=+ No. The powers are restricted to control of the agreed use of conventions, by regulation under 40D. There is no power to define 'convention' except as the Law Book defines it. In England the Level 3 regulations are that you may not use any conventions with an opening 1H or 1S bid that by agreement may be made on 3 cards. The same prohibition applies with opening natural 1 of suit bids that are not either at least 11HCP or Rule of 19. ~ 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 Mar 28 15:22:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2S4LC911315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:21:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2S4L3H11295 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:21:04 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200203280421.g2S4L3H11295@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 24675 invoked by uid 0); 28 Mar 2002 04:10:19 -0000 Received: from pec-34-218.tnt1.f.uunet.de (HELO www) (149.225.34.218) by mail.gmx.net (mp006-rz3) with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 04:10:19 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus), bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 05:05:54 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-reply-to: <3CA2418A.855E2B0D@t-online.de> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.12b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 27 Mar 02, at 23:02, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > stefan filonardi schrieb: > > I would say that the german system is quite different since an > > opening at the first level that does not satisfy the rule of eighteen > > has to be considered as a HUM system at any level and in any seat > > with all following restrictions. > This is definitely not the case. Only opening bids that SYSTEMICALLY > violate the rule of 18 are considered HUM. I was answering to Alains posting in which he was describing the level systems in Belgium without any link to psyching. So when he says that: > On 27 Mar 02, at 16:19, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > And the Rule of 18 is implemented in events ranked A thru D. ergo the rule of eighteen is not implemented in E-G and assumes that: > Thus it seems the system is similar > (as a mathematician, I'd say isomorphic) to the German/Austrian > system. It even functions fairly well. And as you correctly say in germany you can't do it systematically at any level in any position, without being automatically playing a HUM, this does not look similar to me. Sorry if I created confusion, ciao stefan kaiserslautern, germany PS Matthias to write in capitals is considered equivalent to scream, I am sure you can make your point without screaming. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 19:51:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2S8oi713228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:50:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2S8oZH13210 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:50:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-74-18-75.dc.rr.com [66.74.18.75]) by orngca-mls01.socal.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.3) with SMTP id g2S8btf04694 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:37:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006101c1d635$0913fc40$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" References: <200203191203.MAA25898@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 00:46:21 -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 I have been rather bothered by the change in the rule that existed long ago, that required the declarer who played from the wrong hand to play the suit from the correct hand. Perhaps that was an option that existed for the defenders; I don't know what the precise law was. It seems to me that the current law is in effect a license to try leading from the wrong hand when it is to your advantage. If the opponents accept it you are in like Flynn, and if they stop you, nothing has been lost. I believe you don't even have to play the same suit! I think restoring the old rule, or something like it, would eliminate an opportunity for sharp practice. Does anyone remember the reason this rule was changed? Irv Kostal ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 8:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > Robin Barker writes > >I read four words in the FLB on Sunday that I wasn't previously aware of. > > > > L55A. Declarer's Lead Accepted > > > > If declarer has led out of turn from his or dummy's hand, > > either defender may accept the lead as provided in Law 53, > > or require its retraction (after misinformation, see Law 47E1). > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > >This caused me some consternation! > > > >Previously, when declarer lead out from the wrong hand or at defenders' turn > >to lead, I offered both defenders the opportunity to accept the lead (L53). > >Now it appears I should offer both defenders the opportunity to accept the > >lead or to require its retraction. > > Correct. > > >What I don't understand is one defender accepts and one requires its retraction? > > He who speaks first speaks for the partnership - and I tell them that. > > >What if RHO requires its retraction and LHO plays to the LOOT, accepting it? > > I think you should avoid this as TD! > > >What if one defender says "I do not wish to accept the lead", indending that > >partner may still choose to accept the lead, is that different from requiring > >its retraction? > > No. He has spoken first and he has made a decision for the > partnership. > > -- > 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 Mar 28 20:09:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2S99Su15285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:09:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2S99JH15266 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:09:20 +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 g2S8wbH05688 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:58:38 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 28 09:55:01 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KFW1UBU3RS000Y94@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:57:44 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:57:25 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:57:41 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: "'Irv Kostal'" , BLML Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I have been rather bothered by the change in the rule that > existed long ago, > that required the declarer who played from the wrong hand to > play the suit > from the correct hand. Perhaps that was an option that > existed for the > defenders; I don't know what the precise law was. It seems > to me that the > current law is in effect a license to try leading from the > wrong hand when > it is to your advantage. If the opponents accept it you are > in like Flynn, > and if they stop you, nothing has been lost. I believe you > don't even have > to play the same suit! I think restoring the old rule, or > something like it, > would eliminate an opportunity for sharp practice. Does > anyone remember the > reason this rule was changed? because it was too harsh. because we play bridge with people who once in a while make innocent mistakes. because the rules are not meant to deal with criminals. Though we may: look at 72B (or whatever, I even don't bring my law book to my office anymore), which was added for your benefit and pleasure. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 21:07:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SA6fp21359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:06:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SA6WH21338 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:06:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2S9tnB21699; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:55:49 GMT Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:55:49 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g2S9tno05010; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:55:49 GMT Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:55:49 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 JAA08113; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:55:49 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id JAA01253; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:55:48 GMT Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:55:48 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200203280955.JAA01253@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bigfoot@dc.rr.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I have been rather bothered by the change in the rule that > > existed long ago, > > that required the declarer who played from the wrong hand to > > play the suit > > from the correct hand. Perhaps that was an option that > > existed for the > > defenders; I don't know what the precise law was. It seems > > to me that the > > current law is in effect a license to try leading from the > > wrong hand when > > it is to your advantage. If the opponents accept it you are > > in like Flynn, > > and if they stop you, nothing has been lost. I believe you > > don't even have > > to play the same suit! I think restoring the old rule, or > > something like it, > > would eliminate an opportunity for sharp practice. Does > > anyone remember the > > reason this rule was changed? > > > > because it was too harsh. because we play bridge with people who once in a > while make innocent mistakes. because the rules are not meant to deal with > criminals. Though we may: look at 72B (or whatever, I even don't bring my > law book to my office anymore), which was added for your benefit and > pleasure. L72B1, but L55C is more specifically applicable. 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 Mar 28 21:14:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SAEWO22229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:14:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SAENH22208 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:14:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2SA3hJ21336 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:03:43 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:03 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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: <003701c1d5d4$9915a480$5c21e150@dodona> So let me get this straight: The WBFLC told the WBF that ZOs were to be granted the power to bar psyches despite the explicit wording of 40A. The WBF decided that this was exactly what the laws intended - despite the explicit wording of 40A. Neither the WBF nor the WBFLC saw fit to make this extremely significant and fundamental change explicit - one of us is on the wrong planet. 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 Mar 28 22:14:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SBDsn00025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:13:54 +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 g2SBDjH00010 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:13:46 +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 MAA27795; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:02:01 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA08920; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:03:05 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328115526.00a5d120@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:05:32 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Irv Kostal'" , BLML From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" 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 09:57 28/03/2002 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > I have been rather bothered by the change in the rule that > > existed long ago, > > that required the declarer who played from the wrong hand to > > play the suit > > from the correct hand. Perhaps that was an option that > > existed for the > > defenders; I don't know what the precise law was. It seems > > to me that the > > current law is in effect a license to try leading from the > > wrong hand when > > it is to your advantage. If the opponents accept it you are > > in like Flynn, > > and if they stop you, nothing has been lost. I believe you > > don't even have > > to play the same suit! I think restoring the old rule, or > > something like it, > > would eliminate an opportunity for sharp practice. Does > > anyone remember the > > reason this rule was changed? > > > >because it was too harsh. because we play bridge with people who once in a >while make innocent mistakes. because the rules are not meant to deal with >criminals. Though we may: look at 72B (or whatever, I even don't bring my >law book to my office anymore), which was added for your benefit and >pleasure. AG : I remember a case that we treated in an elementary TD course. Dummy has a row of high clubs, but declarer, who has the lead, has no more clubs. He calls for a club from dummy (or extracts one himself). RHO follows, thus condoning the LOOT. IIRC, we were asked to decide that the LOOT has indeed be accepted, but to correct declarer's score according to L72B1, which was new at this time. This led to creating a split score, a thing of which our teacher was very fond. I've always felt the arguments behind the score correction were a little slender. How would you all have adjudicated the case ? Thank you for your opinion. 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 Mar 28 22:23:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SBNkL01124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:23:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SBNbH01106 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 22:23:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.106]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTO0011MKHECY@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:12:52 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:43:47 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Kooijman, A." Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000001c1d649$5133f200$6a4d003e@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bravo! But this was not what you suggested in the case of 2 King of D. when you wrote something like 'that if you cancel the board , a player facing a zero may add a card to cancel the board . You even added "might not you"? Well I'm afraid to admit it would not even cross my mind . Best regards Israel Erdenbaum----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Irv Kostal'" ; "BLML" Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:57 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > > > > I have been rather bothered by the change in the rule that > > existed long ago, > > that required the declarer who played from the wrong hand to > > play the suit > > from the correct hand. Perhaps that was an option that > > existed for the > > defenders; I don't know what the precise law was. It seems > > to me that the > > current law is in effect a license to try leading from the > > wrong hand when > > it is to your advantage. If the opponents accept it you are > > in like Flynn, > > and if they stop you, nothing has been lost. I believe you > > don't even have > > to play the same suit! I think restoring the old rule, or > > something like it, > > would eliminate an opportunity for sharp practice. Does > > anyone remember the > > reason this rule was changed? > > > > because it was too harsh. because we play bridge with people who once in a > while make innocent mistakes. because the rules are not meant to deal with > criminals. Though we may: look at 72B (or whatever, I even don't bring my > law book to my office anymore), which was added for your benefit and > pleasure. > > ton > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 23:06:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SC64V05950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:06:04 +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 g2SC5sH05931 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:05:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3625.bb.online.no [80.212.222.41]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA18195 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:55:10 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004501c1d64f$697329c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328115526.00a5d120@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:55:09 +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: "Alain Gottcheiner" ..... > AG : I remember a case that we treated in an elementary TD course. Dummy > has a row of high clubs, but declarer, who has the lead, has no more clubs. > He calls for a club from dummy (or extracts one himself). RHO follows, thus > condoning the LOOT. > IIRC, we were asked to decide that the LOOT has indeed be accepted, but to > correct declarer's score according to L72B1, which was new at this time. > This led to creating a split score, a thing of which our teacher was very fond. > I've always felt the arguments behind the score correction were a little > slender. How would you all have adjudicated the case ? NOS has in principle accepted the LOOT and are not entitled to redress. But if declarer "could have known" that his LOOT from dummy at that time "would be likely to damage NOS" he shall not be permitted to keep his favourable result. Hence the score shall be adjusted, at least for the offending side. Even if you find that L72B1 does not apply you always have law 84E which in most cases of irregularities causing damage does support an adjustment of the score at the discretion of the Director. Split score is no target in itself, but solves such cases where one side has obtained an unjustified good result which should be denied them while the other side due to some act or failure to act are not entitled to a corresponding redress. 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 Mar 28 23:06:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SC5Vg05861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:05:31 +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 g2SC5NH05839 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:05:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.71.62] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qYPu-000IYS-00; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:50:07 +0000 Message-ID: <003601c1d64f$5948fac0$794ce150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:53:20 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 28 March 2002 10:03 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > In-Reply-To: <003701c1d5d4$9915a480$5c21e150@dodona> > So let me get this straight: > > Neither the WBF nor the WBFLC saw fit to > make this extremely significant and fundamental > change explicit +=+ A formal interpretation by the WBFLC is wholly explicit, being based upon the authority of the WBF By-Laws.+=+ > - one of us is on the wrong planet. > > Tim > +=+ Yes +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 23:57:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SCuxK12786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:56:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SCulH12762 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:56:48 +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 g2SCk6H18384 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:46:08 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Mar 28 13:42:27 2002 +0100 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KFW9STZR2S000XQS@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:45:35 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:45:17 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:45:27 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: "'Israel Erdnbaum'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Kooijman, A." 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 > > > Bravo! But this was not what you suggested in the case of 2 King of D. > when you wrote something like 'that if you cancel the board > , a player > facing a zero may add a card to cancel the board . You even > added "might not > you"? Well I'm afraid to admit it would not even cross my mind . What crossed your mind when spotting my suggestion? What I wanted to explain there was that cancelling a board because there are 53 cards in play only seems the right approach when play started with 53 cards. May be I put too much emphasis on purposeful irregularities. And I was completely sure that you never would think of doing such a thing. By the way, how often did you play with 53 cards? Use your memory all the way down, till your first session of bridge, somewhere in the fifties, probably earlier. And how often did declarer at your table play from dummy being in hand? Must be a thousand times by now. ton > Best regards > Israel Erdenbaum----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A." > To: "'Irv Kostal'" ; "BLML" > > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:57 AM > Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > > > > > > > > > I have been rather bothered by the change in the rule that > > > existed long ago, > > > that required the declarer who played from the wrong hand to > > > play the suit > > > from the correct hand. Perhaps that was an option that > > > existed for the > > > defenders; I don't know what the precise law was. It seems > > > to me that the > > > current law is in effect a license to try leading from the > > > wrong hand when > > > it is to your advantage. If the opponents accept it you are > > > in like Flynn, > > > and if they stop you, nothing has been lost. I believe you > > > don't even have > > > to play the same suit! I think restoring the old rule, or > > > something like it, > > > would eliminate an opportunity for sharp practice. Does > > > anyone remember the > > > reason this rule was changed? > > > > > > > > because it was too harsh. because we play bridge with > people who once in a > > while make innocent mistakes. because the rules are not > meant to deal with > > criminals. Though we may: look at 72B (or whatever, I even > don't bring my > > law book to my office anymore), which was added for your benefit and > > pleasure. > > > > ton > > -- > > > ============================================================== > ========== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > the message. > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Mar 28 23:57:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SCv1M12789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:57:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SCunH12767 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 23:56:50 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2SCkAv13262 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:46:10 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:46 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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: <003601c1d64f$5948fac0$794ce150@pacific> Grattan wrote: > +=+ A formal interpretation by the WBFLC > is wholly explicit, being based upon the authority > of the WBF By-Laws.+=+ I'm sorry but "The WBF did confirm, upon enquiry by the EBL in 1984/5, that it is lawful to ban the psyching of a convention under Law 40D." Is very far from saying explicitly "The WBF considers it within both the spirit and laws of the game that ZOs may use L40D to prevent all psyching (including the psyching of purely natural bids)." 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 Mar 29 00:52:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SDqGY19309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:52:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SDq7H19290 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:52:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.22]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTO0020KRCUHQ@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:41:20 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:40:00 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Kooijman, A." Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000601c1d65e$10371600$164d003e@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I started playing bridge in 1944 ,and I never played with 53 cards.I also wholeheartedly applauded your approach to the retraction . Best regards Israel----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Israel Erdnbaum'" ; ; "Kooijman, A." Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 2:45 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > > > > > > > Bravo! But this was not what you suggested in the case of 2 King of D. > > when you wrote something like 'that if you cancel the board > > , a player > > facing a zero may add a card to cancel the board . You even > > added "might not > > you"? Well I'm afraid to admit it would not even cross my mind . > > > What crossed your mind when spotting my suggestion? What I wanted to explain > there was that cancelling a board because there are 53 cards in play only > seems the right approach when play started with 53 cards. May be I put too > much emphasis on purposeful irregularities. And I was completely sure that > you never would think of doing such a thing. By the way, how often did you > play with 53 cards? Use your memory all the way down, till your first > session of bridge, somewhere in the fifties, probably earlier. And how often > did declarer at your table play from dummy being in hand? Must be a thousand > times by now. > > ton > > > > > > > > Best regards > > Israel Erdenbaum----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > To: "'Irv Kostal'" ; "BLML" > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:57 AM > > Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have been rather bothered by the change in the rule that > > > > existed long ago, > > > > that required the declarer who played from the wrong hand to > > > > play the suit > > > > from the correct hand. Perhaps that was an option that > > > > existed for the > > > > defenders; I don't know what the precise law was. It seems > > > > to me that the > > > > current law is in effect a license to try leading from the > > > > wrong hand when > > > > it is to your advantage. If the opponents accept it you are > > > > in like Flynn, > > > > and if they stop you, nothing has been lost. I believe you > > > > don't even have > > > > to play the same suit! I think restoring the old rule, or > > > > something like it, > > > > would eliminate an opportunity for sharp practice. Does > > > > anyone remember the > > > > reason this rule was changed? > > > > > > > > > > > > because it was too harsh. because we play bridge with > > people who once in a > > > while make innocent mistakes. because the rules are not > > meant to deal with > > > criminals. Though we may: look at 72B (or whatever, I even > > don't bring my > > > law book to my office anymore), which was added for your benefit and > > > pleasure. > > > > > > ton > > > -- > > > > > ============================================================== > > ========== > > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > > the message. > > > A Web archive is at > > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 01:11:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SEAgm21333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:10:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SEAXH21313 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:10:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.79]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTO002MQS7JHQ@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:59:46 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:57:57 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002901c1d660$a33be320$164d003e@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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328115526.00a5d120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004501c1d64f$697329c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk So in fact uou"punish " the OS ,for what might have been a deliberate action by not allowing him to profit from his possibly intentional infraction. But at the same time you punish very severely the NOS for being inattentive(. Is this how you understand equity?(Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > ..... > > AG : I remember a case that we treated in an elementary TD course. Dummy > > has a row of high clubs, but declarer, who has the lead, has no more > clubs. > > He calls for a club from dummy (or extracts one himself). RHO follows, > thus > > condoning the LOOT. > > IIRC, we were asked to decide that the LOOT has indeed be accepted, but to > > correct declarer's score according to L72B1, which was new at this time. > > This led to creating a split score, a thing of which our teacher was very > fond. > > I've always felt the arguments behind the score correction were a little > > slender. How would you all have adjudicated the case ? > > NOS has in principle accepted the LOOT and are not entitled to redress. > > But if declarer "could have known" that his LOOT from dummy at that time > "would be likely to damage NOS" he shall not be permitted to keep his > favourable result. > > Hence the score shall be adjusted, at least for the offending side. > > Even if you find that L72B1 does not apply you always have law 84E > which in most cases of irregularities causing damage does support an > adjustment of the score at the discretion of the Director. > > Split score is no target in itself, but solves such cases where one side > has obtained an unjustified good result which should be denied them > while the other side due to some act or failure to act are not entitled > to a corresponding redress. > > 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 Fri Mar 29 01:31:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SEVaR23651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:31:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SEVSH23631 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:31:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qalj-0001UA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:20:47 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328081000.00b71820@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:22:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <001c01c1d601$99692240$793de150@dodona> References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020327081938.00b6bcc0@pop.starpower.net> <007401c1d5c5$0c636a40$b116b9d2@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 09:36 PM 3/27/02, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Eric Landau > > > > > >The WBF has said that this rule is legal??? > > > > > > That's how I read Grattan's posts. The WBF has > > > interpreted L40D as granting rather broad > > > regulatory powers to its SOs/ZOs, and the > > > Austrian regulation falls within the scope of > > > those powers. > >+=+ No. The powers are restricted to control of >the agreed use of conventions, by regulation >under 40D. There is no power to define 'convention' >except as the Law Book defines it. > In England the Level 3 regulations are that >you may not use any conventions with an opening >1H or 1S bid that by agreement may be made on >3 cards. The same prohibition applies with >opening natural 1 of suit bids that are not either >at least 11HCP or Rule of 19. ~ G ~ +=+ It appears I owe both Grattan and Wayne an apology. To Grattan for misunderstanding his position, and to Wayne for suggesting that Grattan had factually contradicted his line of argument. Apparently the WBF has not said that the Austrian regulation is legal. Grattan frequently reminds us, however, that he doesn't speak for the WBF here, so apparently they have not said that it is illegal either. Wayne argues that if the WBF believes the regulation to be illegal, it should take steps to force the Austrian NBO to repeal it. Tim argues that if the WBF believes the regulation to be legal, it should change the laws to make it clearly and explicitly legal. They are both right. But the WBF's failure to change the laws, as Tim would have it, can only mean that they do not choose to do so, which suggests that they believe either that the regulation is illegal, or (equivalently, when one has the power to write the laws) that it should be, notwithstanding that it may currently be technically legal by virtue of an unintended and undesired loophole in the laws. Whereas their failure to take action on the Austrian regulation, as Wayne would have it, need not mean that they do not choose to do so; it might well mean that they lack the power to do so. The simplest explanation for their failure to act -- thus the one that can most readily be assumed for lack of information to the contrary -- is that they do believe that the regulation is (or should be) illegal, that they know that they should, in theory, take action to force its repeal, but that they do not do so because they are sensible folks who know better than to start a fight they don't expect to win. It looks like the WBF is afraid to take sides because to do so honestly might reveal their impotence. But the WBF, impotent or not, is an august and eminent body that does command a good deal of respect in the bridge community, and they should not be reluctant to use their moral authority to try to accomplish by "jawboning" what they can't command by fiat. Imagine a statement from the WBF along the lines of, "The Austrian regulation in question is technically legal by virtue of an unintended loophole in L40. In our opionion, however, this regulation is not consistent with the spirit of the Law as intended. Nevertheless, we recognize that a number of our member organizations have deliberately chosen to take advantage of this loophole to make regulations in accordance with the wishes of their individual constituencies. We do not believe that it is appropriate for the WBF to attempt to impose its wishes on member organizations and their constituencies by pure fiat, and have therefore chosen to allow the loophole to remain a part of the Law. We strongly urge the Austrian authority to consider repealing their regulation, but will not require them to do so." Now I am not privy to the inner workings of the WBF, but there are several members of this forum who are. I very much hope that one or more of them will let me know how good a job I've done in summarizing their collective thinking from what bits and pieces of hints I have gathered from BLML and elsewhere. But whether I am right or wrong, whatever the WBF's position really is, the bridge community would be better served if they were to reveal it, clearly, unamibiguously, and publicly. 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 Mar 29 01:52:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SEqHm25900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:52:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SEq9H25885 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 01:52:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qb5m-0005sE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:41:30 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328092548.00b823f0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:43:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <200203280421.g2S4L3H11295@rgb.anu.edu.au> References: <3CA2418A.855E2B0D@t-online.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:05 AM 3/28/02, stefan wrote: >Matthias to write in capitals is considered equivalent to scream, I >am sure you can make your point without screaming. When posting on the internet, to write in capitals is merely to emphasize a particular word or phrase within the limitations of the typography of the ASCII character set. It is the equivalent of using a bold or italic typeface, and should not be taken personally. When posting to a wide (or unknown) audience, it is generally considered much more polite to use capitals for this purpose than to send messages in HTML, notwithstanding that doing so would allow the use of actual boldface or italics. Some internet forums have adopted the useful convention of using capitals for BOLD, and using delimiting asterisks for *italic*. 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 Mar 29 02:03:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SF2uP27210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:02:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.minfod.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SF2fH27176 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:02:48 +1100 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:56:05 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D3@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:56:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I enforce the laws. Law 53A clearly says that following to a LOOT accepts that lead. Nothing in the Laws comes close to permitting a variance from that for being inattentive. The Laws don't say that the lead is accepted unless that would result in a really bad score for the NOS. Being inattentive is regularly "punished" with poor results. (Otherwise I would have had a much better game last night.) When directing I find I sometimes agree with the players that a particular penalty (as prescribed by the Laws) is harsh for their particular situation. I am sure we can all recall hundreds of similar situations. The players frown, or say "Ouch", but most would far prefer an occasional overly harsh penalty given under clear Laws to the situation where the director might say "Usually your following to the LOOT would accept it, but in this particular situation I think it would be more equitable for declarer to lead from his own hand." The need for appeals committees would increase dramatically! -----Original Message----- From: Israel Erdnbaum To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Sent: 3/28/02 8:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" So in fact uou"punish " the OS ,for what might have been a deliberate action by not allowing him to profit from his possibly intentional infraction. But at the same time you punish very severely the NOS for being inattentive(. Is this how you understand equity?(Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 1:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > From: "Alain Gottcheiner" > ..... > > AG : I remember a case that we treated in an elementary TD course. Dummy > > has a row of high clubs, but declarer, who has the lead, has no more > clubs. > > He calls for a club from dummy (or extracts one himself). RHO follows, > thus > > condoning the LOOT. > > IIRC, we were asked to decide that the LOOT has indeed be accepted, but to > > correct declarer's score according to L72B1, which was new at this time. > > This led to creating a split score, a thing of which our teacher was very > fond. > > I've always felt the arguments behind the score correction were a little > > slender. How would you all have adjudicated the case ? > > NOS has in principle accepted the LOOT and are not entitled to redress. > > But if declarer "could have known" that his LOOT from dummy at that time > "would be likely to damage NOS" he shall not be permitted to keep his > favourable result. > > Hence the score shall be adjusted, at least for the offending side. > > Even if you find that L72B1 does not apply you always have law 84E > which in most cases of irregularities causing damage does support an > adjustment of the score at the discretion of the Director. > > Split score is no target in itself, but solves such cases where one side > has obtained an unjustified good result which should be denied them > while the other side due to some act or failure to act are not entitled > to a corresponding redress. > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 02:26:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SFPki00795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:25:46 +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 g2SFPbH00777 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:25:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qbcB-0006DQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:14:59 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:14:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328115526.00a5d120@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:05 AM 3/28/02, Alain wrote: >AG : I remember a case that we treated in an elementary TD course. >Dummy has a row of high clubs, but declarer, who has the lead, has no >more clubs. He calls for a club from dummy (or extracts one himself). >RHO follows, thus condoning the LOOT. >IIRC, we were asked to decide that the LOOT has indeed be accepted, >but to correct declarer's score according to L72B1, which was new at >this time. This led to creating a split score, a thing of which our >teacher was very fond. >I've always felt the arguments behind the score correction were a >little slender. How would you all have adjudicated the case ? L72B1: "[If] an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the offending side..." My interpretation of these words is dependent upon the notion that in order for an offender to "know[]... that the irregularity would be likely to damage the offending he side" he must know that "the irregularity" exists. So I would have had to have been there. If I believed there was any possibility that declarer might have deliberately led from the wrong hand I would adjust the score under L72B1. If I were fully convinced that it was an innocent, unintended error, I would allow the score to stand. In neither case would I split the score. 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 Mar 29 02:43:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SFhMi02814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:43:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SFhDH02796 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:43:14 +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 KAA18153 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:32:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA25424 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:32:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:32:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203281532.KAA25424@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > because the rules are not meant to deal with > criminals. Though we may: look at 72B (or whatever L72B1 indeed, the "could have known" law. (Robin mentions 55C, but it covers only one of the many ways declarer could gain.) For practicing directors: does this mean that any time you are called to the table for declarer's lead from the wrong hand, you should give consideration to 72B1? Do you do so? > From: Alain Gottcheiner > Dummy > has a row of high clubs, but declarer, who has the lead, has no more clubs. > He calls for a club from dummy (or extracts one himself). RHO follows, thus > condoning the LOOT. L72B1 seems obvious here, but I don't see a reason to split the score. Is it because RHO's play is "irrational, wild, or gambling?" I suppose I can understand irrational, but it looks merely careless to me. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 03:13:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SGCck06091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:12:38 +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 g2SGCTH06070 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:12:29 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g2SG1nG26651 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:01:49 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:01 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328081000.00b71820@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > Tim argues that if the WBF believes the regulation to be legal, it > should change the laws to make it clearly and explicitly legal. Tim thinks that he and the WBF are in agreement that the Austrian regulation (if applied to all pairs tournaments rather than being just for special novice events) is illegal.* The Austrian regulation is not written to comply with *any* interpretation of L40D. *(Actually it's probably illegal even if just applied to novice events but I think that strict application of the laws to such events would be ludicrous anyway). The difference comes in if the Austrian regulation were to be re-written as: "No conventions may be played by any pair where either player ever makes 1 level opening bids on hands that do not comply to the rule of 18." Grattan is of the opinion that the above rewrite would be legal - I am praying that it would not. To me a regulation like that completely undermines L40a, the spirit of the game, and the intention of the original lawmakers - it is a gaping chasm in the laws, not merely a "loophole". 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 Mar 29 03:17:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SGH1Z06579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:17:01 +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 g2SGGnH06557 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:16:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.0.29] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qcLF-00044O-00; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:01:33 +0000 Message-ID: <002801c1d672$7a28e200$1d00e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020327081938.00b6bcc0@pop.starpower.net> <007401c1d5c5$0c636a40$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328081000.00b71820@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:03:56 -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 Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: 28 March 2002 14:22 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > At 09:36 PM 3/27/02, Grattan wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Wayne Burrows" > >> > Imagine a statement from the WBF along the > lines of, "The Austrian regulation in question is > technically legal by virtue of an unintended > loophole in L40. In our opinion, however, this > regulation is not consistent with the spirit of the > Law as intended. Nevertheless, we recognize > that a number of our member organizations > have deliberately chosen to take advantage of > this loophole to make regulations in accordance > with the wishes of their individual constituencies. > We do not believe that it is appropriate for the > WBF to attempt to impose its wishes on member > organizations and their constituencies by pure fiat, > and have therefore chosen to allow the loophole to > remain a part of the Law. We strongly urge the > Austrian authority to consider repealing their > regulation, but will not require them to do so." > +=+ Applause. Not that you are exactly right, but near the mark and positively glowing with rationality. 'Unintended loophole' is not really true; it is all to do with the interpretation of 40D which was, you might say, opportunistic - what you cannot say is that there was any express intention one way or the other in this particular question before it arose. It would be a considerable departure from practice for the WBF as a body to seem to censure an NBO as you suggest; the most that has been done in the past - by Theus, Kaplan or any of us, is to let an individual member (or two) express views to an NBO, and leave them to do what they choose about it. In my experience they move from frying pan to cooking pot without loss of burn. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Currently, if a representation were made to an NBO, I doubt it would be done publicly. ~ 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 Mar 29 03:17:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SGH2M06585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:17:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SGGoH06562 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:16:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.0.29] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qcLH-00044O-00; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:01:35 +0000 Message-ID: <002901c1d672$7b5701c0$1d00e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Tim Westmead" , Cc: "Tim Westmead" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:05:23 -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 Grattan Endicott To: Cc: Sent: 28 March 2002 12:46 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > In-Reply-To: <003601c1d64f$5948fac0$794ce150@pacific> > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ A formal interpretation by the WBFLC > > is wholly explicit, being based upon the authority > > of the WBF By-Laws.+=+ > > I'm sorry but > > "The WBF did confirm, upon enquiry by the EBL in 1984/5, > that it is lawful to ban the psyching of a convention under > Law 40D." > > Is very far from saying explicitly > > "The WBF considers it within both the spirit and laws > of the game that ZOs may use L40D to prevent all > psyching (including the psyching of purely natural > bids)." > > Tim > +=+ And, to repeat myself, it is not the case that the WBF or the WBFLC on its behalf has made any such statement. I thought your complaint was that the WBF did nothing about an NBO that had such a regulation? To which I responded "think about it, what do you imagine it could do?" - *my* solution being to change the law when next we are about it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 03:33:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SGWVh07985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:32:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com [212.74.112.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SGWMH07969 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:32:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.9.58] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qcaJ-00078k-00; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:17:07 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c1d674$a6b64cc0$1d00e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200203281532.KAA25424@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:21:00 -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 Grattan Endicott To: > > For practicing directors: does this mean that any time you are called > to the table for declarer's lead from the wrong hand, you should give > consideration to 72B1? Do you do so? > +=+ Kaplan would likely have referred you to Law 11, leaving the NOS to stew in its own juice - as he did within my knowledge in one similar situation - and penalizing the OS commensurately with their gain (and more). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 03:42:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SGgUp09131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:42:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SGgKH09117 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:42:21 +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 g2RGmfo28196 for ; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:48:41 GMT Message-ID: <3QQ2K5D0O0o8EwPq@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:24:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" References: <200203281532.KAA25424@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200203281532.KAA25424@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 <200203281532.KAA25424@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> because the rules are not meant to deal with >> criminals. Though we may: look at 72B (or whatever > >L72B1 indeed, the "could have known" law. (Robin mentions 55C, but >it covers only one of the many ways declarer could gain.) > >For practicing directors: does this mean that any time you are called >to the table for declarer's lead from the wrong hand, you should give >consideration to 72B1? Do you do so? I always consider Law72B1. I seldom apply it though. If the mistake is innocent, then I tend not to. > >> From: Alain Gottcheiner >> Dummy >> has a row of high clubs, but declarer, who has the lead, has no more clubs. >> He calls for a club from dummy (or extracts one himself). RHO follows, thus >> condoning the LOOT. > As for this one I'd ask declarer why he lead from dummy. provoded i was satisfied, I'd leave the score alone. Mind you they don't get away with it against me, because while they're thinking (which is what then leads to the inadvertent lead from the wrong hand), I usually say "Your best shot is to lead from dummy and see if we notice". >L72B1 seems obvious here, but I don't see a reason to split the score. >Is it because RHO's play is "irrational, wild, or gambling?" I suppose >I can understand irrational, but it looks merely careless to me. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Mar 29 05:04:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SI41925034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:04:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SI3mH25016 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:03:48 +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 g2SHr3n20262; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:53:03 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020328114121.00a53ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:51:21 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Cc: "Grattan Endicott" In-Reply-To: <002901c1d672$7b5701c0$1d00e150@pacific> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have stayed out of this thread, because it doesn't interest me, and because I don't think the infringement of the regulation is so horrible to worry about. But I'm afraid this answer concerns me more than the regulation itself did: At 04:05 PM 3/28/02 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ And, to repeat myself, it is not the case >that the WBF or the WBFLC on its behalf >has made any such statement. I thought >your complaint was that the WBF did nothing >about an NBO that had such a regulation? >To which I responded "think about it, what do >you imagine it could do?" - *my* solution being to >change the law when next we are about it. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grattan, are you really saying: a) If a NBO makes a regulation that violates the Laws of Bridge there is absolutely nothing the WBF can do about it, and b) Your proposed solution is to re-write the Laws? 'a' concerns me a great deal. As has been pointed out, one characteristic of a serious international 'sport' is that the international authority has some sort of control over member organizations. At the very least, the international organization ought to be able to influence member organizations to obey the laws of the game. 'b' makes absolutely no sense to me. If the NBO doesn't respect the laws of the game to begin with, how can re-writing the laws of the game do any good? Unless you're going to re-write the laws to accomodate the NBO. Again, I didn't think the original regulation was so bad that a major incident was justified, but this response seems to imply that nothing could be done even in a much more serious case. _That_ concerns me. Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 05:53:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SIqwc00650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:52:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SIqnH00636 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:52:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3625.bb.online.no [80.212.222.41]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA04448 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:42:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005701c1d688$41d10c00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020328115526.00a5d120@pop.ulb.ac.be> <004501c1d64f$697329c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002901c1d660$a33be320$164d003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:42:04 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > So in fact uou"punish " the OS ,for what might have been a deliberate action > by not allowing him to profit from his possibly intentional infraction. But > at the same time you punish very severely the NOS for being inattentive(. > Is this how you understand equity Yes NOS cannot disobey Law 74B1 and at the same time claim redress for an irregularity which they should have noticed with a minimum of attention. There is a matter of judgement here, but when the laws are clear (like about playing to a lead out of turn) TD has no choice for NOS. 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 Mar 29 06:06:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SJ5j501974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:05:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SJ5aH01958 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:05:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3625.bb.online.no [80.212.222.41]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA02023 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:54:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:54:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" ..... > L72B1: "[If] an offender could have known at the time of his > irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the > offending side..." > > My interpretation of these words is dependent upon the notion that in > order for an offender to "know[]... that the irregularity would be > likely to damage the offending he side" he must know that "the > irregularity" exists. > > So I would have had to have been there. If I believed there was any > possibility that declarer might have deliberately led from the wrong > hand I would adjust the score under L72B1. If I were fully convinced > that it was an innocent, unintended error, I would allow the score to > stand. In neither case would I split the score. "Could have known at the time of his irregularity" does not imply that the player must have been aware that he actually made an irregularity. It simply covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage from an irregularity, and that advantage could have been foreseen at the time. The example is very good in such respects: It does not matter whether the irregularity is intentional or accidental, the fact is that leading from the wrong hand is the only way declarer can cash his club tricks. Those tricks give him an unjustified gain, and he "could" at the time of the error have been aware of that. Hence L72B1 Now as the NOS is concerned: If they have "accepted" the lead out of turn by playing a card to the trick they have violated Law 74B1, and Law 53 denies them any redress for the lead out of turn. The only way to set scores here is by using split 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 Fri Mar 29 06:08:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SJ82i02223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:08:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SJ7rH02208 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:07:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3625.bb.online.no [80.212.222.41]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA03210 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:57:09 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006f01c1d68a$5cb85620$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203281532.KAA25424@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 19:57:08 +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: "Steve Willner" > L72B1 indeed, the "could have known" law. (Robin mentions 55C, but > it covers only one of the many ways declarer could gain.) > > For practicing directors: does this mean that any time you are called > to the table for declarer's lead from the wrong hand, you should give > consideration to 72B1? Yes, of course > Do you do so? Sure! > > Dummy > > has a row of high clubs, but declarer, who has the lead, has no more clubs. > > He calls for a club from dummy (or extracts one himself). RHO follows, thus > > condoning the LOOT. > > L72B1 seems obvious here, but I don't see a reason to split the score. > Is it because RHO's play is "irrational, wild, or gambling?" I suppose > I can understand irrational, but it looks merely careless to me. No, it is because RHO has violated law 74B1 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 Mar 29 06:52:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SJpoT08379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:51:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SJpgH08363 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:51:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qflf-0001ge-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:41:03 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328140321.00ab0eb0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:42:38 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" In-Reply-To: <200203281532.KAA25424@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 10:32 AM 3/28/02, Steve wrote: > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > because the rules are not meant to deal with > > criminals. Though we may: look at 72B (or whatever > >L72B1 indeed, the "could have known" law. (Robin mentions 55C, but >it covers only one of the many ways declarer could gain.) > >For practicing directors: does this mean that any time you are called >to the table for declarer's lead from the wrong hand, you should give >consideration to 72B1? Do you do so? You should certainly give consideration to L72B. There are two different types of situations in which L72B1 applies. In the type of case where we most commonly think to apply L72B1, the "irregularity" in question is an "extraneous action", such as a remark, facial expression, gesture, etc. Such irregularities become infractions when the conditions of some particular law, such as L16A or L72B1, are met. The conditions of L72B1 are met when "the director deems that [the] offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side". Since the offender in such cases presumptively knows that he has committed an irregularity in the form of an "extraneous action", the TD need only decide whether he "could have known" that it would be likely to cause damage. The other type of case arises where the "irregularity" is the result of an inappropriate but "natural" (as opposed to "extraneous") action, such as leading from the wrong hand or making an insufficient bid. In those cases, we can say that a player "could have known... that [his] irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side" only if we believe the player "could have known" that he has committed an irregularity. To say that "he could have known that he has committed an irregularity" is equivalent to saying that he might have acted in violation of L72B2. So in the case at hand we must consider whether declarer *might* have violated L72B2. If we determine that he might have, we must consider whether the conditions of L72B1 apply. We do not need to believe that he *did* violate L72B2, only that he might have, because we do not need to find that he *did* know that his irregularity was likely to cause damage, only that he "could have". 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 Mar 29 08:11:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SLBDQ17067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:11:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SLB0H17044 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:11:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qh0O-0002lr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:00:20 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328145620.00ab11c0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:01:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <002801c1d672$7a28e200$1d00e150@pacific> References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020327081938.00b6bcc0@pop.starpower.net> <007401c1d5c5$0c636a40$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328081000.00b71820@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 11:03 AM 3/28/02, Grattan wrote: > It would be a considerable departure from >practice for the WBF as a body to seem to censure >an NBO as you suggest; the most that has been >done in the past - by Theus, Kaplan or any of us, is >to let an individual member (or two) express views >to an NBO, and leave them to do what they choose >about it. In my experience they move from frying >pan to cooking pot without loss of burn. > >Currently, if a representation were made >to an NBO, I doubt it would be done publicly. When an organization deliberately takes a position that is contrary to the best interests of its membership, it is all too easy for those running the organization to dismiss a private representation by an outside authority with a glib reassurance that "our members like things as they are". What a public representation does that a private representation cannot do is attract public statements of support and opposition from the organization's members, making it impossible for the organization to dismiss a representation that does in fact correspond with the wishes of a clear majority of its membership without making obvious the hypocrisy of those who falsely claim to speak for that membership. In other words, what open "jawboning" does for a contentious issue is to force it to be debated openly rather than be decided behind close doors by those who believe themselves able (or pretend) to know what their membership wants without asking or listening to what that membership has to say on the subject. If the WBF sees its ultimate responsibility as being to its corporate member organizations -- i.e. to the governing bodies of those organizations -- then making private representations is appropriate. If the WBF sees its ultimate responsibility as being to the members of its constituent organizations -- i.e. to the bridge players of the world -- then making public representations is appropriate. Apparently the WBF takes the former view. I cannot quarrel with this, since while they have never publically admitted this to be true, they have not publically denied it either. They are what they are, and we cannot lead them to conclusions as to how they "should" act by starting from the premise that they are something else. I, and others who have made such attempts, have apparently been guilty of wishful thinking. We whose day-to-day bridge is controlled by an organization that routinely acts contrary to the interests of their core membership, that openly admits that the best interests of its members are not its highest priority, and that often makes decisions that can only be explained by a complete lack of rationality, can perhaps be forgiven for living in hope that some deus ex machina will descend from heaven to put those idiots on our governing board back on the path of rationality and righteousness, and for living in false hope that the WBF might someday decide that its responsibility is not to governing boards, but rather to bridge players, and serve that function. 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 Mar 29 08:28:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SLSFV18881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:28:15 +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 g2SLS1H18852 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:28:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qhGs-0006M3-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:17:22 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328160625.00b7fd50@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 16:18:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" In-Reply-To: <003701c1d674$a6b64cc0$1d00e150@pacific> References: <200203281532.KAA25424@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 11:21 AM 3/28/02, Grattan wrote: >+=+ Kaplan would likely have referred you to >Law 11, leaving the NOS to stew in its own >juice - as he did within my knowledge in one >similar situation - and penalizing the OS >commensurately with their gain (and more). But L11A covers only those cases in which "the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action..." In the case at hand, it is clear that the non-offending side cannot have gained anything by its failure to summon the director before following to the improper lead from dummy, so I don't see how L11 can be considered relevant here. 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 Mar 29 09:17:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SMGeG23948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:16:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SMGWH23932 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:16:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 25675 invoked by uid 504); 28 Mar 2002 22:05:50 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.818135 secs); 28 Mar 2002 22:05:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.232) by 0 with SMTP; 28 Mar 2002 22:05:48 -0000 Message-ID: <002701c1d6a4$3ab4e9c0$e816b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net><4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net><4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net><4.3.2.7.0.20020327081938.00b6bcc0@pop.starpower.net><007401c1d5c5$0c636a40$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328081000.00b71820@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:02:16 +1200 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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > At 09:36 PM 3/27/02, Grattan wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Eric Landau > > > > > > > >The WBF has said that this rule is legal??? > > > > > > > > That's how I read Grattan's posts. The WBF has > > > > interpreted L40D as granting rather broad > > > > regulatory powers to its SOs/ZOs, and the > > > > Austrian regulation falls within the scope of > > > > those powers. > > > >+=+ No. The powers are restricted to control of > >the agreed use of conventions, by regulation > >under 40D. There is no power to define 'convention' > >except as the Law Book defines it. > > In England the Level 3 regulations are that > >you may not use any conventions with an opening > >1H or 1S bid that by agreement may be made on > >3 cards. The same prohibition applies with > >opening natural 1 of suit bids that are not either > >at least 11HCP or Rule of 19. ~ G ~ +=+ > > It appears I owe both Grattan and Wayne an apology. To Grattan for > misunderstanding his position, and to Wayne for suggesting that Grattan > had factually contradicted his line of argument. np > Imagine a statement from the WBF along the lines of, "The Austrian > regulation in question is technically legal by virtue of an unintended > loophole in L40. I don't see the loophole that allows banning of psyches or even some particular psyches (or even as my NCO has done artificially limiting their number). I do see the arguement that one can ban a psyche of a conventional bid by regulating that convention. I do not agree with it. I do not believe that it is a loophole. I believe it is a distortion of L40A and L80F. > But whether I am right or wrong, > whatever the WBF's position really is, the bridge community would be > better served if they were to reveal it, clearly, unamibiguously, and > publicly. Too right :-) 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 Mar 29 09:53:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SMrLB27759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:53:21 +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 g2SMrCH27742 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:53:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qibJ-0006F6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:42:33 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328162729.00b888f0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:44:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" In-Reply-To: <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@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 01:54 PM 3/28/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" >..... > > L72B1: "[If] an offender could have known at the time of his > > irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the > > offending side..." > > > > My interpretation of these words is dependent upon the notion that in > > order for an offender to "know[]... that the irregularity would be > > likely to damage the offending he side" he must know that "the > > irregularity" exists. > > > > So I would have had to have been there. If I believed there was any > > possibility that declarer might have deliberately led from the wrong > > hand I would adjust the score under L72B1. If I were fully convinced > > that it was an innocent, unintended error, I would allow the score to > > stand. In neither case would I split the score. > >"Could have known at the time of his irregularity" does not imply that >the player must have been aware that he actually made an irregularity. You cannot know that something which has occurred was likely to have resulted from something you did if you do not know that you did it. "The irregularity" cannot have caused damage if the irregularity did not occur. Consequently, you cannot know that the irregularity has (or might have) caused damage if you do not know that the irregularity occurred. L72B1 requires more than merely that the irregularity might have caused damage; it requires that the offender could have known that it might do so. >It simply covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage >from an irregularity, and that advantage could have been foreseen >at the time. It covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage, and where he could have foreseen that advantage. It does not cover cases where someone else, with different (even if that means, as in this case, correct) information, could have foreseen that advantage but the offender could not have. >The example is very good in such respects: It does not matter >whether the irregularity is intentional or accidental, the fact is that >leading from the wrong hand is the only way declarer can cash his >club tricks. Those tricks give him an unjustified gain, and he "could" >at the time of the error have been aware of that. Hence L72B1 > >Now as the NOS is concerned: If they have "accepted" the lead out >of turn by playing a card to the trick they have violated Law 74B1, >and Law 53 denies them any redress for the lead out of turn. I wouldn't be so quick to apply to L74B1 to the NOs. After all, they were presumably far less inattentive than the offender, who misplayed without being misprompted by an immediately preceding misplay by the other side -- unless, of course, the declarer was violating L74B2, which is a far more serious offense than mere inattentiveness. One might argue, albeit, IMO, not terribly convincingly, that leading out of turn presumptively meets the threshhold of L74B1, but arguing that following suit to a lead out of turn does so strikes me as taking a rather extreme position. L53 (and L60, similarly) does indeed deny NOS any redress *for the LOOT*. But it does not say that they forfeit the right to redress for any irregularity. If the offender has simultaneously violated both L44G and L72B1, the NOS loses the right to redress for the former offense (leading out of turn), but not for the latter (committing an irregularity which he "could have known" etc.) >The only way to set scores here is by using split score. Where on Earth can we find in this situation any possible irregularity absent which a result could have been obtained which was "at all probable" but not "likely"? Under L12C2, that is the only allowable basis for assigning a split score. One can reasonably argue that the score should be split under L12C3 where it is in force, but one cannot reasonbly argue that doing anything at all under L12C3 "to do equity" is ever "the only way". 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 Mar 29 10:07:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SN7aG29241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:07:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2SN7SH29226 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:07:28 +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 RAA22085 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:56:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA25963 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:56:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 17:56:48 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203282256.RAA25963@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > > L72B1 seems obvious here, but I don't see a reason to split the score. > > Is it because RHO's play is "irrational, wild, or gambling?" I suppose > > I can understand irrational, but it looks merely careless to me. > > No, it is because RHO has violated law 74B1 Eric has commented in more detail, but let me see if I understand the argument. You have let play continue because of L55A; no problem there. At the end of play, you adjust the score under L12C2. No problem there. At this moment you must adjust for both sides because there is no doubt whatsoever about what would have happened without the infraction and thus no reason for a split score. Now here's where I'm getting lost. You want to adjust for the (original) NOS because they have violated L74B1? As Eric says, it hardly seems reasonable to consider following suit to an opponent's lead to be a 74B1 violation, but suppose we do. OK, we go to L12A1 and then 12C2. But how then can we fail to adjust the score for the (original) OS as well? Again, there is no doubt about what would have happened absent the infraction and no reason for a split score. What am I missing? (Please ignore L12C3; if you have it, you can do whatever you want, and no one can say you are wrong.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 10:22:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SNMMJ00842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:22:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SNMDH00825 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:22:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g2SNBXE04377 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:11:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <003101c1d6ad$e06e5d20$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <200203191203.MAA25898@tempest.npl.co.uk> <006101c1d635$0913fc40$6501a8c0@irv> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:11:19 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Irv Kostal"" > I have been rather bothered by the change in the rule that existed long ago, > that required the declarer who played from the wrong hand to play the suit > from the correct hand. Perhaps that was an option that existed for the > defenders; I don't know what the precise law was. The long ago rule required the declarer to play the suit from the correct hand unless either defender accepted it (orally or by a play) *before attention is drawn to the irregularity*. That made it pretty difficult for the defender not playing next to the incorrect play, as he had to be careful to say "I accept" before saying "You're leading from the wrong hand.." Alvin Landy, the Laws expert of that time (1963) wrote in the ACBL's *Bulletin*: "Calling attention to declarer's lead out of turn is not equivalent to requiring its retraction. After director has stated the options, either defender, independently, may accept the lead out of turn." Until that statement by Landy, TDs had been ruling that calling attention to a lead from the wrong hand was equivalent to requiring its retraction, and the lead could therefore not be accepted.. The law was changed accordingly in the 1975 version of the Laws, eliminating "before attention is drawn..." Landy also pointed out that the declaring side cannot cause defenders to lose rights by calling attention to the irregularity themselves. He was going by Law 9, which says "The fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents." Declarers had been getting away with saying "We called attention to it before they accepted it, so I don't have to lead from the wrong hand." Landy stopped that nonsense. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 10:32:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SNVtK01874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:31:55 +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 g2SNVjH01859 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:31:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1865.bb.online.no [80.212.215.73]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA19262 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:21:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00b701c1d6af$38c5ea00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328162729.00b888f0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:20:59 +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: "Eric Landau" ...... > You cannot know that something which has occurred was likely to have > resulted from something you did if you do not know that you did > it. "The irregularity" cannot have caused damage if the irregularity > did not occur. Consequently, you cannot know that the irregularity has > (or might have) caused damage if you do not know that the irregularity > occurred. L72B1 requires more than merely that the irregularity might > have caused damage; it requires that the offender could have known that > it might do so. I am sorry, I 'm not sure I can manage to follow your reasoning (it is getting late here in Norway BTW) If I am been summoned to a table because declarer lead from dummy instead of (correctly) from his own hand and RHO has also played to that trick I do not care whether declarer says he was not aware that he did an irregularity or not. I rule that if he has managed to obtain an unjustified advantage by leading from dummy "he could have known", and I use Law 72B1 accordingly. And if he tries to pull an argument that I cannot use L72B1 because he was not aware that he did an irregularity I shall hold him too for a violation of Law 74B1 instead, and still adjust the score under L72B1. > > >It simply covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage > >from an irregularity, and that advantage could have been foreseen > >at the time. > > It covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage, and where he > could have foreseen that advantage. It does not cover cases where > someone else, with different (even if that means, as in this case, > correct) information, could have foreseen that advantage but the > offender could not have. Do I have to dot the i's and cross the o's? Was it that difficult to understand that when I wrote "could have been foreseen" 8 lines up it implied "by the offender"? > > >The example is very good in such respects: It does not matter > >whether the irregularity is intentional or accidental, the fact is that > >leading from the wrong hand is the only way declarer can cash his > >club tricks. Those tricks give him an unjustified gain, and he "could" > >at the time of the error have been aware of that. Hence L72B1 > > > >Now as the NOS is concerned: If they have "accepted" the lead out > >of turn by playing a card to the trick they have violated Law 74B1, > >and Law 53 denies them any redress for the lead out of turn. > > I wouldn't be so quick to apply to L74B1 to the NOs. After all, they > were presumably far less inattentive than the offender, who misplayed > without being misprompted by an immediately preceding misplay by the > other side -- unless, of course, the declarer was violating L74B2, > which is a far more serious offense than mere inattentiveness. One > might argue, albeit, IMO, not terribly convincingly, that leading out > of turn presumptively meets the threshhold of L74B1, but arguing that > following suit to a lead out of turn does so strikes me as taking a > rather extreme position. Are you serious? Do you ask directors to qualify the amount of attention required by law 74B1? "Insufficient attention" is demonstrated once you fail to notice an important event (like LOOT) during the game. We do not punish "insufficient attention" directly (it is forgiveable), but nor do we compensate for losses due to "insufficient attention". > > L53 (and L60, similarly) does indeed deny NOS any redress *for the > LOOT*. But it does not say that they forfeit the right to redress for > any irregularity. If the offender has simultaneously violated both > L44G and L72B1, the NOS loses the right to redress for the former > offense (leading out of turn), but not for the latter (committing an > irregularity which he "could have known" etc.) ????? NOS (defender) loses no right to redress unless he violates Law74B1 (in this case). L72B1 is used on the declarer, there is no reason to use it on the defenders. > > >The only way to set scores here is by using split score. > > Where on Earth can we find in this situation any possible irregularity > absent which a result could have been obtained which was "at all > probable" but not "likely"? Under L12C2, that is the only allowable > basis for assigning a split score. One can reasonably argue that the > score should be split under L12C3 where it is in force, but one cannot > reasonbly argue that doing anything at all under L12C3 "to do equity" > is ever "the only way". L12C2 does just fine. Declarer will not keep his unjustified favourable score, but defense will not be correspondingly compensated because of L53 and L74B1. 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 Mar 29 10:52:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2SNptn04141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:51:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2SNpkH04122 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:51:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1865.bb.online.no [80.212.215.73]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA23246 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:41:01 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00bf01c1d6b2$047e66c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203282256.RAA25963@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 00:40:57 +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: "Steve Willner" > > > L72B1 seems obvious here, but I don't see a reason to split the score. > > > Is it because RHO's play is "irrational, wild, or gambling?" I suppose > > > I can understand irrational, but it looks merely careless to me. > > > > No, it is because RHO has violated law 74B1 > > Eric has commented in more detail, but let me see if I understand > the argument. > > You have let play continue because of L55A; no problem there. > > At the end of play, you adjust the score under L12C2. No problem > there. At this moment you must adjust for both sides because there is > no doubt whatsoever about what would have happened without the > infraction and thus no reason for a split score. Say the contract was 3NT, declarer had 3 tricks in dummy if only he could get there, but there was no longer any entry in dummy. He just leads from dummy and cashes his 3 tricks and makes game with 9 tricks. RHO was inattentive and just followed suit when declarer lead from dummy, and defenders summoned me too late for a ruling under Law 55. If I had been summoned before RHO played to the trick I would have ruled Law 55, and declarer would have been 3 down. So how do I rule now? 1: Law 72B1: Declarer shall have the score according to 3NT-3 which is the "correct" result on the board. 2: Law 53A and Law 74B1: Defense shall have the score actually obtained for their side on the board, i.e. 3NT just made. All adjustments are made under Law 12C2, the (original) NOS has jeopardized their rights for adjustment by paying insufficient attention to the game (L74B1) with the result that they played to the lead out of turn and thus "accepted" this (L53A). > > Now here's where I'm getting lost. You want to adjust for the > (original) NOS because they have violated L74B1? As Eric says, it > hardly seems reasonable to consider following suit to an opponent's lead > to be a 74B1 violation, but suppose we do. Why not? If they pay attention to the game they will know that declarer leads from the wrong hand. OK, we go to L12A1 and then > 12C2. But how then can we fail to adjust the score for the (original) > OS as well? Again, there is no doubt about what would have happened > absent the infraction and no reason for a split score. I never indicated that we should not adjust for the original OS. On the contrary that is the one adjustment that I have never seen disputed in this thread. > > What am I missing? (Please ignore L12C3; if you have it, you can do > whatever you want, and no one can say you are wrong.) The director cannot adjust under L12C3, that is for the AC. Are you still lost? Sorry, then I am afraid I cannot help you. 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 Mar 29 13:52:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T2pGa23664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:51:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2T2p7H23641 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:51:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qmJP-0000le-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:40:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:53:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Insufficient bid MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk W N E S 1H P 1H The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and opened. South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the bidding proceeds: W N E S 1H P 1H 2H P 4H AP West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an average: in fact the same result as every other table. What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result in any way? If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original question, are members of BLML. -- 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 Mar 29 14:46:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T3jgP00643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:45:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T3jWH00626 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:45:33 +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 g2S3pro29594 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:51:54 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:26:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Eric Landau" >..... >> L72B1: "[If] an offender could have known at the time of his >> irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the >> offending side..." >> >> My interpretation of these words is dependent upon the notion that in >> order for an offender to "know[]... that the irregularity would be >> likely to damage the offending he side" he must know that "the >> irregularity" exists. >> >> So I would have had to have been there. If I believed there was any >> possibility that declarer might have deliberately led from the wrong >> hand I would adjust the score under L72B1. If I were fully convinced >> that it was an innocent, unintended error, I would allow the score to >> stand. In neither case would I split the score. > >"Could have known at the time of his irregularity" does not imply that >the player must have been aware that he actually made an irregularity. > >It simply covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage >from an irregularity, and that advantage could have been foreseen >at the time. > >The example is very good in such respects: It does not matter >whether the irregularity is intentional or accidental, the fact is that >leading from the wrong hand is the only way declarer can cash his >club tricks. Those tricks give him an unjustified gain, and he "could" >at the time of the error have been aware of that. Hence L72B1 > >Now as the NOS is concerned: If they have "accepted" the lead out >of turn by playing a card to the trick they have violated Law 74B1, >and Law 53 denies them any redress for the lead out of turn. > >The only way to set scores here is by using split score. > Bollox. He did it intentionally. Chop his balls off. He did it by mistake. Result stands. Choose one of them. Earn your b****y TD fee. cheers john. >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 14:51:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T3opd01202 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:50:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep1.012.net.il (fep1.goldenlines.net.il [212.117.129.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T3ogH01190 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:50:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.34.39]) by fep1.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020329034057.MZKT572.fep1@zshilon> for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:40:57 +0200 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:40:30 +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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think the contract should be rolled back to 2 hearts. Why didn't east bid 4 hearts after the insufficient bid? zvika Modiin, Israel -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David Stevenson Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:53 PM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Insufficient bid W N E S 1H P 1H The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and opened. South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the bidding proceeds: W N E S 1H P 1H 2H P 4H AP West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an average: in fact the same result as every other table. What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result in any way? If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original question, are members of BLML. -- 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 Fri Mar 29 14:51:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T3p5r01228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:51:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T3orH01207 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:50:54 +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 g2S3vFo29599 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:57:15 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:32:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328162729.00b888f0@pop.starpower.net> <00b701c1d6af$38c5ea00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <00b701c1d6af$38c5ea00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00b701c1d6af$38c5ea00$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Eric Landau" snip > >> >> >The only way to set scores here is by using split score. bollox. Sven, I've formed an opinion over the last few months that you, like me, are a very practical TD. I don't believe you. I *really* don't. You'd ask "Why did you lead from dummy?", and subject to the answer would let the result stand. ... or you'd adjust the result to something totally different, but for both sides. (PWD) >> >> Where on Earth can we find in this situation any possible irregularity >> absent which a result could have been obtained which was "at all >> probable" but not "likely"? Under L12C2, that is the only allowable >> basis for assigning a split score. One can reasonably argue that the >> score should be split under L12C3 where it is in force, but one cannot >> reasonbly argue that doing anything at all under L12C3 "to do equity" >> is ever "the only way". > >L12C2 does just fine. >Declarer will not keep his unjustified favourable score, but defense >will not be correspondingly compensated because of L53 and L74B1. > >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 14:55:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T3t3o01613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:55:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T3ssH01597 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:54:55 +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 g2S41Go29626 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:01:16 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:36:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" References: <200203281532.KAA25424@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003701c1d674$a6b64cc0$1d00e150@pacific> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328160625.00b7fd50@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328160625.00b7fd50@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 In article <4.3.2.7.0.20020328160625.00b7fd50@pop.starpower.net>, Eric Landau writes >At 11:21 AM 3/28/02, Grattan wrote: > >>+=+ Kaplan would likely have referred you to >>Law 11, leaving the NOS to stew in its own >>juice - as he did within my knowledge in one >>similar situation - and penalizing the OS >>commensurately with their gain (and more). > >But L11A covers only those cases in which "the non-offending side may >have gained through subsequent action..." In the case at hand, it is >clear that the non-offending side cannot have gained anything by its >failure to summon the director before following to the improper lead >from dummy, so I don't see how L11 can be considered relevant here. > Look guys - I'm seriously drunk at the moment, but ........ unless the guy is on the make, there is *NO* way you can adjust the score under the laws. WTF are you guys on?. At least I know I'm on seriously good Frog red wine. cheers John > >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/ -- 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 Mar 29 15:02:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T42aq02441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:02:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T42RH02419 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:02:27 +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 g2T3qs507321 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:52:54 -0900 Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 18:50:03 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <3CA11299.DF95C411@t-online.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I really hate to reopen this discussion again: On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > I have had an exchange of mails with a couple of BLMLists this evening ( > not over the list) and the most important may have been a mail from > Gordon Bower. He had got the impression (Maybe a problem with > translations) that psyching was banned in all events under the auspices > of the Austrian Bridge Federation. > > THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!! I have spoken again today with the original source of the claim (a Mr Erwin Franz now of Cleveland, Ohio, but in Austria for many years until about 4 years ago.) He most emphatically affirms the regulation forbids ALL first and second seat psychs in ALL Austrian tournaments, plus some additional things in Treff-und-A-Linien games. I find it hard to argue with him, since the OBV's website's regulation does indeed open with the words "In allen Paarturnieren." I apologize for again stirring this pot. But I confess I am very disturbed by it. If you don't care to discuss it further in this forum, that is fine with me. But I should much appreciate it, if any reader of this message, who actually plays in Austrian tournaments, can tell me of his experience. As for myself, I plan to write to the OBV headquarters (this will be a workout for my German!) and inquire after an official position. I will report back any interesting results. (No groans please.) 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 Fri Mar 29 15:09:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T49AI03114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:09:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T492H03098 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:09:02 +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 g2S4FNo29652 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:15:23 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:50:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to >know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and >opened. > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the >bidding proceeds: > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > 2H P > 4H AP > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice >dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an >average: in fact the same result as every other table. > I'm going to claim TD error, if 4H is not allowed (one way or another). It's so f*****g obvious. The TD is in error, unless he explains that - "if for example you only bid 2H now and partner bids on with a minimum, I shall disallow it", then he has failed to explain the Law such that an intelligent layman could understand it. You meet a fork in the road, and there is free beer in one of the villages. There's this guy who doesn't speak English - which fork will you choose to get your balls cut off? Come on guys - *You*, the TD has to earn his fee occasionally. If you're going to rule 2H plus a lot, *I* won't play in *your* game. (and jeez, I do know what I'm on about - PWD) cheers john > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result >in any way? > > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the >question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a >very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not >agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original >question, are members of BLML. > -- 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 Mar 29 15:12:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T4BrK03430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:11:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T4BhH03408 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:11:44 +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 g2S4I5o29656 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:18:05 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:52:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid 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 , Zvi Shilon writes >I think the contract should be rolled back to 2 hearts. Why didn't east bid >4 hearts after the insufficient bid? > because the TD didn't tell him he'd roll it back. the TD is a total incompetent. That's why. zvika, you're out of your brain to roll it back, unless you explained that, and I will actively tell my friends to boycott your game. cheers john. >zvika >Modiin, Israel > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >[mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David Stevenson >Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:53 PM >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to >know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and >opened. > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the >bidding proceeds: > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > 2H P > 4H AP > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice >dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an >average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result >in any way? > > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the >question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a >very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not >agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original >question, are members of BLML. > >-- >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/ -- 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 Mar 29 15:13:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T4DD103573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:13:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T4D4H03555 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:13:04 +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 g2S4JPo29661 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:19:25 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 03:54:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <3CA11299.DF95C411@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Gordon Bower writes > >I really hate to reopen this discussion again: > >On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Matthias Berghaus wrote: >> I have had an exchange of mails with a couple of BLMLists this evening ( >> not over the list) and the most important may have been a mail from >> Gordon Bower. He had got the impression (Maybe a problem with >> translations) that psyching was banned in all events under the auspices >> of the Austrian Bridge Federation. >> >> THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!! > >I have spoken again today with the original source of the claim (a Mr >Erwin Franz now of Cleveland, Ohio, but in Austria for many years until >about 4 years ago.) > >He most emphatically affirms the regulation forbids ALL first and second >seat psychs in ALL Austrian tournaments, plus some additional things in >Treff-und-A-Linien games. > >I find it hard to argue with him, since the OBV's website's regulation >does indeed open with the words "In allen Paarturnieren." > Das ist nicht bridge. cheers john. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 15:43:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T4h8W07879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:43:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2T4gxH07859 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:42:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.137]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTP005H6WLN5F@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:32:13 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:30:51 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000601c1d6da$830bfca0$895f003e@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: <200203281532.KAA25424@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328160625.00b7fd50@pop.starpower.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "leaving the NOS to stew in it's own juice" especially when NOS can be an elderly novice ,or even just an elderly person is not made more palatable because KAPLAN did it once ,or if he even did it many times. Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > At 11:21 AM 3/28/02, Grattan wrote: > > >+=+ Kaplan would likely have referred you to > >Law 11, leaving the NOS to stew in its own > >juice - as he did within my knowledge in one > >similar situation - and penalizing the OS > >commensurately with their gain (and more). > > But L11A covers only those cases in which "the non-offending side may > have gained through subsequent action..." In the case at hand, it is > clear that the non-offending side cannot have gained anything by its > failure to summon the director before following to the improper lead > from dummy, so I don't see how L11 can be considered relevant here. > > > 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 Mar 29 16:02:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T524p09883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:02:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T51tH09867 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:01:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.75.124]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTP00588XH43W@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:51:07 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 06:49:18 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "John (MadDog) Probst" Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001f01c1d6dd$284c73a0$895f003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk He did it intentionally ,but you chop off the balls of the NOS ,and when they are babes in the wood it hurts,but you have no choice it's the holy Law . Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 5:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > In article <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran > writes > >From: "Eric Landau" > >..... > >> L72B1: "[If] an offender could have known at the time of his > >> irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the > >> offending side..." > >> > >> My interpretation of these words is dependent upon the notion that in > >> order for an offender to "know[]... that the irregularity would be > >> likely to damage the offending he side" he must know that "the > >> irregularity" exists. > >> > >> So I would have had to have been there. If I believed there was any > >> possibility that declarer might have deliberately led from the wrong > >> hand I would adjust the score under L72B1. If I were fully convinced > >> that it was an innocent, unintended error, I would allow the score to > >> stand. In neither case would I split the score. > > > >"Could have known at the time of his irregularity" does not imply that > >the player must have been aware that he actually made an irregularity. > > > >It simply covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage > >from an irregularity, and that advantage could have been foreseen > >at the time. > > > >The example is very good in such respects: It does not matter > >whether the irregularity is intentional or accidental, the fact is that > >leading from the wrong hand is the only way declarer can cash his > >club tricks. Those tricks give him an unjustified gain, and he "could" > >at the time of the error have been aware of that. Hence L72B1 > > > >Now as the NOS is concerned: If they have "accepted" the lead out > >of turn by playing a card to the trick they have violated Law 74B1, > >and Law 53 denies them any redress for the lead out of turn. > > > >The only way to set scores here is by using split score. > > > Bollox. He did it intentionally. Chop his balls off. > He did it by mistake. Result stands. > > Choose one of them. Earn your b****y TD fee. > > cheers john. > > >Sven > > > >-- > >======================================================================== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 16:13:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T5DKn11036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:13:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T5DBH11020 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:13:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.75.124]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTP005C3XZX50@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:02:23 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 07:01:04 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Zvi Shilon Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003a01c1d6de$bb925de0$895f003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bravo Zvi.Can there be a clearer case of UI Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:40 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > I think the contract should be rolled back to 2 hearts. Why didn't east bid > 4 hearts after the insufficient bid? > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of David Stevenson > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 10:53 PM > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > opened. > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > bidding proceeds: > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > 2H P > 4H AP > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > in any way? > > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the > question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a > very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not > agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original > question, are members of BLML. > > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 16:33:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T5X8K13235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:33:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T5WxH13216 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:33:00 +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 g2S5dKo29803 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 05:39:20 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 05:13:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001f01c1d6dd$284c73a0$895f003e@erdnbaum> In-Reply-To: <001f01c1d6dd$284c73a0$895f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001f01c1d6dd$284c73a0$895f003e@erdnbaum>, Israel Erdnbaum writes >He did it intentionally ,but you chop off the balls of the NOS ,and when >they are babes in the wood it hurts,but you have no choice it's the holy Law >. He did it intentionally, then chop his balls off. Easy. NO's get a top. They should never have been exposed to that sort of pressure. An ethical player wouldn't have done it. Come on Israel. you know better than to nail the NO's because they were asleep after the 30 second pause. cheers john >Best regards >Israel Erdenbaum >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 5:26 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > > >> In article <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran >> writes >> >From: "Eric Landau" >> >..... >> >> L72B1: "[If] an offender could have known at the time of his >> >> irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the >> >> offending side..." >> >> >> >> My interpretation of these words is dependent upon the notion that in >> >> order for an offender to "know[]... that the irregularity would be >> >> likely to damage the offending he side" he must know that "the >> >> irregularity" exists. >> >> >> >> So I would have had to have been there. If I believed there was any >> >> possibility that declarer might have deliberately led from the wrong >> >> hand I would adjust the score under L72B1. If I were fully convinced >> >> that it was an innocent, unintended error, I would allow the score to >> >> stand. In neither case would I split the score. >> > >> >"Could have known at the time of his irregularity" does not imply that >> >the player must have been aware that he actually made an irregularity. >> > >> >It simply covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage >> >from an irregularity, and that advantage could have been foreseen >> >at the time. >> > >> >The example is very good in such respects: It does not matter >> >whether the irregularity is intentional or accidental, the fact is that >> >leading from the wrong hand is the only way declarer can cash his >> >club tricks. Those tricks give him an unjustified gain, and he "could" >> >at the time of the error have been aware of that. Hence L72B1 >> > >> >Now as the NOS is concerned: If they have "accepted" the lead out >> >of turn by playing a card to the trick they have violated Law 74B1, >> >and Law 53 denies them any redress for the lead out of turn. >> > >> >The only way to set scores here is by using split score. >> > >> Bollox. He did it intentionally. Chop his balls off. >> He did it by mistake. Result stands. >> >> Choose one of them. Earn your b****y TD fee. >> >> cheers john. >> >> >Sven >> > >> >-- >> >======================================================================== >> >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ >> >> -- >> John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 >> 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou >> London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com >> +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Mar 29 18:21:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T7KWe25343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:20:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T7KMH25326 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:20:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.164]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTQ0051U3VVN7@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:09:34 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:07:30 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Eric Landau Cc: Mark Horton , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004d01c1d6f0$7fb75160$895f003e@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: <008401c1d36b$87482c20$ae16b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020325092546.00ab7e80@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326084916.00b68100@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020326174853.00b68ee0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020327081938.00b6bcc0@pop.starpower.net> <007401c1d5c5$0c636a40$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328081000.00b71820@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328145620.00ab11c0@pop.starpower.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What about people playing bridge (maybe not bridge PLAYERS) for recreation .They are the bread and butter for the bridge clubs (at least in Israel) and the bridge clubs keep the Bridge Federation. Though I am totally in accord with you,when talking about bridge as a sport I think it is not less important to keep bridge as entertainment which can and do make true the claim 'if you play bridge you need not be alone'. So to keep both groups happy you need a much simpler code of Laws for 'entertainment bridge' . I tried unsuccesfully to promote this cause I now hope that you and others in BLML will take up this cause. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 11:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > At 11:03 AM 3/28/02, Grattan wrote: > > > It would be a considerable departure from > >practice for the WBF as a body to seem to censure > >an NBO as you suggest; the most that has been > >done in the past - by Theus, Kaplan or any of us, is > >to let an individual member (or two) express views > >to an NBO, and leave them to do what they choose > >about it. In my experience they move from frying > >pan to cooking pot without loss of burn. > > > >Currently, if a representation were made > >to an NBO, I doubt it would be done publicly. > > When an organization deliberately takes a position that is contrary to > the best interests of its membership, it is all too easy for those > running the organization to dismiss a private representation by an > outside authority with a glib reassurance that "our members like things > as they are". What a public representation does that a private > representation cannot do is attract public statements of support and > opposition from the organization's members, making it impossible for > the organization to dismiss a representation that does in fact > correspond with the wishes of a clear majority of its membership > without making obvious the hypocrisy of those who falsely claim to > speak for that membership. In other words, what open "jawboning" does > for a contentious issue is to force it to be debated openly rather than > be decided behind close doors by those who believe themselves able (or > pretend) to know what their membership wants without asking or > listening to what that membership has to say on the subject. > > If the WBF sees its ultimate responsibility as being to its corporate > member organizations -- i.e. to the governing bodies of those > organizations -- then making private representations is > appropriate. If the WBF sees its ultimate responsibility as being to > the members of its constituent organizations -- i.e. to the bridge > players of the world -- then making public representations is appropriate. > > Apparently the WBF takes the former view. I cannot quarrel with this, > since while they have never publically admitted this to be true, they > have not publically denied it either. They are what they are, and we > cannot lead them to conclusions as to how they "should" act by starting > from the premise that they are something else. I, and others who have > made such attempts, have apparently been guilty of wishful > thinking. We whose day-to-day bridge is controlled by an organization > that routinely acts contrary to the interests of their core membership, > that openly admits that the best interests of its members are not its > highest priority, and that often makes decisions that can only be > explained by a complete lack of rationality, can perhaps be forgiven > for living in hope that some deus ex machina will descend from heaven > to put those idiots on our governing board back on the path of > rationality and righteousness, and for living in false hope that the > WBF might someday decide that its responsibility is not to governing > boards, but rather to bridge players, and serve that function. > > > 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 Mar 29 18:34:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T7YP326916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:34:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T7YFH26894 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:34:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.164]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTQ005834J0N7@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:23:27 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:22:07 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "John (MadDog) Probst" Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <008601c1d6f2$703907e0$895f003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001f01c1d6dd$284c73a0$895f003e@erdnbaum> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Do you know a TD that will give the NOS a top.Do you know a TD that will change their score when they happen to get a cold bottom. To do that you need a simpler code of Laws for recreational bridge. Will you root for it ,John. cheers Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > In article <001f01c1d6dd$284c73a0$895f003e@erdnbaum>, Israel Erdnbaum > writes > >He did it intentionally ,but you chop off the balls of the NOS ,and when > >they are babes in the wood it hurts,but you have no choice it's the holy Law > >. > He did it intentionally, then chop his balls off. Easy. NO's get a top. > They should never have been exposed to that sort of pressure. An ethical > player wouldn't have done it. Come on Israel. you know better than to > nail the NO's because they were asleep after the 30 second pause. > cheers john > > > >Best regards > >Israel Erdenbaum > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 5:26 AM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > > > > > >> In article <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran > >> writes > >> >From: "Eric Landau" > >> >..... > >> >> L72B1: "[If] an offender could have known at the time of his > >> >> irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the > >> >> offending side..." > >> >> > >> >> My interpretation of these words is dependent upon the notion that in > >> >> order for an offender to "know[]... that the irregularity would be > >> >> likely to damage the offending he side" he must know that "the > >> >> irregularity" exists. > >> >> > >> >> So I would have had to have been there. If I believed there was any > >> >> possibility that declarer might have deliberately led from the wrong > >> >> hand I would adjust the score under L72B1. If I were fully convinced > >> >> that it was an innocent, unintended error, I would allow the score to > >> >> stand. In neither case would I split the score. > >> > > >> >"Could have known at the time of his irregularity" does not imply that > >> >the player must have been aware that he actually made an irregularity. > >> > > >> >It simply covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage > >> >from an irregularity, and that advantage could have been foreseen > >> >at the time. > >> > > >> >The example is very good in such respects: It does not matter > >> >whether the irregularity is intentional or accidental, the fact is that > >> >leading from the wrong hand is the only way declarer can cash his > >> >club tricks. Those tricks give him an unjustified gain, and he "could" > >> >at the time of the error have been aware of that. Hence L72B1 > >> > > >> >Now as the NOS is concerned: If they have "accepted" the lead out > >> >of turn by playing a card to the trick they have violated Law 74B1, > >> >and Law 53 denies them any redress for the lead out of turn. > >> > > >> >The only way to set scores here is by using split score. > >> > > >> Bollox. He did it intentionally. Chop his balls off. > >> He did it by mistake. Result stands. > >> > >> Choose one of them. Earn your b****y TD fee. > >> > >> cheers john. > >> > >> >Sven > >> > > >> >-- > >> >======================================================================== > >> >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >> >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >> >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > >> > >> -- > >> John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > >> 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > >> London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > >> +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk > >> -- > >> ======================================================================== > >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 19:05:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T85WF00918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:05:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T85OH00903 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:05:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-vcauga5.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.65.69] helo=davishi) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16qrDc-00053N-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:54:40 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01c1d6f6$d7e6a380$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <003a01c1d6de$bb925de0$895f003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 02:53:38 -0500 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: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: ; "Zvi Shilon" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Bravo Zvi.Can there be a clearer case of UI > Israel Erdenbaum Do explain, as L27B1a, under which the ruling would be made, specifically states that 16C2 does not apply. Since 16C2 is the law which would explicitly make the withdrawn insufficient call UI, how can it not apply, unless the withdrawn insufficient call is AI? We can play semantic games and look at the intro to L16, which states that players are entitled to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls or plays, and an insufficient call is not a legal call...but that's just word games. If the intent of the lawmakers was to have the withdrawn insufficient call be UI, it makes no sense to suspend 16C2, which would have accomplished exactly that, for the purposes of the ruling, . I await your explanation with some eagerness. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 19:35:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T8YWG03955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:34:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T8YNH03936 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:34:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47902.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.30]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2T8NYD12807 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:23:34 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA424B9.9020605@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:24:25 +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] Insufficient bid References: <003a01c1d6de$bb925de0$895f003e@erdnbaum> <000d01c1d6f6$d7e6a380$0a01a8c0@davishi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Do explain, as L27B1a, under which the ruling would be made, specifically > states that 16C2 does not apply. Since 16C2 is the law which would > explicitly make the withdrawn insufficient call UI, how can it not apply, > unless the withdrawn insufficient call is AI? > Ehh, Hirsh - read on, please. L16C2 does not apply, but L27B1b does. > We can play semantic games and look at the intro to L16, which states that > players are entitled to base their calls and plays on information from legal > calls or plays, and an insufficient call is not a legal call...but that's > just word games. If the intent of the lawmakers was to have the withdrawn > insufficient call be UI, it makes no sense to suspend 16C2, which would have > accomplished exactly that, for the purposes of the ruling, . > > I await your explanation with some eagerness. > > Regards, > > Hirsch > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 29 19:53:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T8rLw06043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:53:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout04.sul.t-online.com (mailout04.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T8rCH06027 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:53:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd04.sul.t-online.de by mailout04.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16qrb4-0001F3-09; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:18:54 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[80.135.138.230]) by fwd04.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16qrb1-2DG9aKC; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:18:51 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA42368.AF2C067A@t-online.de> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:18:48 +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: Gordon Bower CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower schrieb: > > I really hate to reopen this discussion again: > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Matthias Berghaus wrote: > > I have had an exchange of mails with a couple of BLMLists this evening ( > > not over the list) and the most important may have been a mail from > > Gordon Bower. He had got the impression (Maybe a problem with > > translations) that psyching was banned in all events under the auspices > > of the Austrian Bridge Federation. > > > > THIS IS NOT THE CASE!!!! > > I have spoken again today with the original source of the claim (a Mr > Erwin Franz now of Cleveland, Ohio, but in Austria for many years until > about 4 years ago.) > > He most emphatically affirms the regulation forbids ALL first and second > seat psychs in ALL Austrian tournaments, plus some additional things in > Treff-und-A-Linien games. > > I find it hard to argue with him, since the OBV's website's regulation > does indeed open with the words "In allen Paarturnieren." Which means it doesn`t apply in Teams-of-four. I am sorry if my earlier posts were in any way unclear. Again (a bit clearer now, I hope): It only applies in pairs events, and the third-hand stuff only applies in the lower brackets of these events if these brackets are only for "Treff"- and "A"-players. > I apologize for again stirring this pot. But I confess I am very disturbed > by it. If you don't care to discuss it further in this forum, that is fine > with me. But I should much appreciate it, if any reader of this message, > who actually plays in Austrian tournaments, can tell me of his experience. > > As for myself, I plan to write to the OBV headquarters (this will be a > workout for my German!) and inquire after an official position. I will > report back any interesting results. (No groans please.) If you need any help with your German just drop me a line. > GRB > 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 Fri Mar 29 20:21:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T9LAP09003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:21:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2T9L1H08986 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:21:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0455.bb.online.no [80.212.209.199]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA01862 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:10:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004501c1d701$8a7a6220$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:10:15 +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: "David Stevenson" > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > opened. > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > bidding proceeds: > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > 2H P > 4H AP > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > in any way? > > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the > question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a > very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not > agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original > question, are members of BLML. What is the problem David? Sure I too think it is obvious. If TD explained Law27 properly I shall adjust the contract to 2H made 5. If TD failed to give sufficient explanation of Law27 I shall rule (accept) TD error. 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 Mar 29 20:39:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2T9cie10821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:38:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep1.012.net.il (fep1.goldenlines.net.il [212.117.129.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2T9cYH10801 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 20:38:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.34.39]) by fep1.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020329092850.NKFA572.fep1@zshilon> for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:28:50 +0200 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "BLML" Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:28:14 +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) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000d01c1d6f6$d7e6a380$0a01a8c0@davishi> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk After 1h - 2h, I suppose that west always bids 4h with a bad minimum opening. zvika Modiin, Israel -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Hirsch Davis Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 9:54 AM To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: ; "Zvi Shilon" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Bravo Zvi.Can there be a clearer case of UI > Israel Erdenbaum Do explain, as L27B1a, under which the ruling would be made, specifically states that 16C2 does not apply. Since 16C2 is the law which would explicitly make the withdrawn insufficient call UI, how can it not apply, unless the withdrawn insufficient call is AI? We can play semantic games and look at the intro to L16, which states that players are entitled to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls or plays, and an insufficient call is not a legal call...but that's just word games. If the intent of the lawmakers was to have the withdrawn insufficient call be UI, it makes no sense to suspend 16C2, which would have accomplished exactly that, for the purposes of the ruling, . I await your explanation with some eagerness. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 29 21:25:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TAOn415978 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:24:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.ihug.com.au (smtp3.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TAOfH15963 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:24:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (p717-tnt2.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.166.209]) by smtp3.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id VAA03636 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:13:50 +1100 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp3.ihug.com.au: Host p717-tnt2.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.166.209] claimed to be default Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:15:44 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:53 28/03/02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to >know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and >opened. > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the >bidding proceeds: > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > 2H P > 4H AP > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice >dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an >average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result >in any way? I'll go against what appears to be the initial majority and say that I am not adjusting! Law 16C2 doesn't apply to the withdrawn 1H bid and I am not convinced that the conditions for adjusting under Law 27B1(b) have been fulfilled. What indication is there to West that East has an opening bid (rather than a simple 2H raise)? The Director also needs to be careful that he doesn't generate real UI with the manner of his inquiries about the insufficient 1H bid. Laurie (In Australia) > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the >question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a >very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not >agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original >question, are members of BLML. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 21:38:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TAbv017412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:37:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TAbkH17390 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:37:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0455.bb.online.no [80.212.209.199]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA12173; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:26:58 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00be01c1d70c$4232f620$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "Laurie Kelso" References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:26:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Laurie Kelso" > At 20:53 28/03/02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > W N E S > > 1H P 1H > > > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > >know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > >opened. > > > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > >bidding proceeds: > > > > W N E S > > 1H P 1H > > 2H P > > 4H AP > > > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > >dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > >average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > >in any way? > > I'll go against what appears to be the initial majority and say that I am > not adjusting! Law 16C2 doesn't apply to the withdrawn 1H bid and I am not > convinced that the conditions for adjusting under Law 27B1(b) have been > fulfilled. > > What indication is there to West that East has an opening bid (rather than > a simple 2H raise)? East didn't claim Law25A (inadvertent call)? > > The Director also needs to be careful that he doesn't generate real UI with > the manner of his inquiries about the insufficient 1H bid. Sure, that is a reason why he does not interfere with the bidding but considers adjustment after end of 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 Fri Mar 29 22:06:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TB5VU20671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:05:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp3.ihug.com.au (smtp3.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TB5MH20659 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:05:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (p717-tnt2.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.166.209]) by smtp3.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id VAA04928 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:54:33 +1100 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp3.ihug.com.au: Host p717-tnt2.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.166.209] claimed to be default Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20020329215627.010d7e90@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:56:27 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <00be01c1d70c$4232f620$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:26 29/03/02 +0100, Sven Pran wrote: >From: "Laurie Kelso" > >> At 20:53 28/03/02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> > W N E S >> > 1H P 1H >> > >> > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to >> >know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and >> >opened. >> > >> > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the >> >bidding proceeds: >> > >> > W N E S >> > 1H P 1H >> > 2H P >> > 4H AP >> > >> > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice >> >dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an >> >average: in fact the same result as every other table. >> > >> > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result >> >in any way? >> >> I'll go against what appears to be the initial majority and say that I am >> not adjusting! Law 16C2 doesn't apply to the withdrawn 1H bid and I am >not >> convinced that the conditions for adjusting under Law 27B1(b) have been >> fulfilled. >> >> What indication is there to West that East has an opening bid (rather than >> a simple 2H raise)? > >East didn't claim Law25A (inadvertent call)? This is hardly convincing. Why are you making assumptions about the level of East's knowledge of the Laws? I'm very curious about what the Director did when he went to the table. David's original text says that the "TD applies the relevant Law". Laurie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 22:32:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TBW3f23620 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:32:03 +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 g2TBVsH23608 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:31:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0455.bb.online.no [80.212.209.199]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA20787 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:21:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000b01c1d713$d22253a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> <3.0.6.32.20020329215627.010d7e90@pop.ihug.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:21:06 +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 From: "Laurie Kelso" ..... > >> What indication is there to West that East has an opening bid (rather than > >> a simple 2H raise)? > > > >East didn't claim Law25A (inadvertent call)? > > This is hardly convincing. Why are you making assumptions about the level > of East's knowledge of the Laws? In cases like this the appearance by East when TD arrives will usually reveal whether he was "surprised" from his own call or from discovering that another player (partner) had already made an opening bid. From the description I assume the latter was the case here, and then West has the UI that East has an opening hand. > > I'm very curious about what the Director did when he went to the table. > David's original text says that the "TD applies the relevant Law". So am I, and I have applied a few assumptions based upon my experience: Most probably three players around the table noticed East making an opening bid while being unaware that West had already made his. 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 Mar 29 22:39:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TBdCT24375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:39:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail12.svr.pol.co.uk (mail12.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.215]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TBd2H24359 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:39:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail12.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16quYP-00075g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:28:21 +0000 Received: from modem-118.convict-tang.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.251.118] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16quYN-0003Xz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:28:20 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA11374; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:31:10 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 29 Mar 2002 11:27:37 +0000 In-Reply-To: David Stevenson's message of "Thu, 28 Mar 2002 20:53:18 +0000" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Lines: 63 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by laphraoig.localdomain id LAA11374 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2TBd5H24363 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > W N E S > 1H P 1H > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > opened. > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > bidding proceeds: > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > 2H P > 4H AP > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > in any way? > > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the > question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a > very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not > agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original > question, are members of BLML. I think those who want to adjust the score *because of UI* must be wrong. The parenthetical remark in L27B1(a) ["Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation, ..."] seems to tell us pretty clearly that information from the withdrawn 1H bid is authorized. Could those who want to adjust on the basis of L27B1(b) give an example of a situation where they think the parenthetical remark has some effect? The correct interpretation of L27B1 can't be "it's not UI, but adjust the score just as though it is UI", otherwise why is it not UI? The only reasonable way I can think of to interpret this law in this case is as follows: Information from the withdrawn 1H bid is AI, so the OS are allowed to use it. Were the NOS damaged? Probably not, as it sounds as though the table result was exactly what would have happened without the insufficient bid. So result stands. If, on the other hand, the opening bidder, knowing that his partner had a good hand from the withdrawn 1H bid, had used the extra bidding space that the strong 2H response gave him to bid a making slam that he would not have managed without the insufficient bid, then the NOS would have been damaged, and the score should be adjusted on the basis of L27B1(b). Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Mar 29 22:49:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TBn3225425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:49:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TBmsH25409 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:48:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.44]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTQ006F6GBFEM@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:38:05 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:36:45 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Zvi Shilon Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The insufficient bid gave the information that W has a 1H opening bid , if this isn't UI what is ? Read please Law 27 B1(b) The TD should have warned W about the consequences of bidding 2H ,but we haven't been asked about that. Regards Israel- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:28 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > After 1h - 2h, I suppose that west always bids 4h with a bad minimum > opening. > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Hirsch Davis > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 9:54 AM > To: BLML > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: ; "Zvi Shilon" > Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:01 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > Bravo Zvi.Can there be a clearer case of UI > > Israel Erdenbaum > > Do explain, as L27B1a, under which the ruling would be made, specifically > states that 16C2 does not apply. Since 16C2 is the law which would > explicitly make the withdrawn insufficient call UI, how can it not apply, > unless the withdrawn insufficient call is AI? > > We can play semantic games and look at the intro to L16, which states that > players are entitled to base their calls and plays on information from legal > calls or plays, and an insufficient call is not a legal call...but that's > just word games. If the intent of the lawmakers was to have the withdrawn > insufficient call be UI, it makes no sense to suspend 16C2, which would have > accomplished exactly that, for the purposes of the ruling, . > > I await your explanation with some eagerness. > > Regards, > > Hirsch > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Fri Mar 29 23:12:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TCB7h27776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:11:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TCAvH27756 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:10:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.72]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTQ007FGHC968@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:00:11 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:58:20 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Hirsch Davis Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001201c1d719$176da360$484c003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <003a01c1d6de$bb925de0$895f003e@erdnbaum> <000d01c1d6f6$d7e6a380$0a01a8c0@davishi> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hope you read my answer to Zvi .What I want to tell you is this .Firstly make up your mind about what happened and then try to find the appropriate Law . As I pointed out in my post to Zvi the real problem is why W was not warned by the TD . See also Law 27 B 2. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum -- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 9:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: ; "Zvi Shilon" > Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:01 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > Bravo Zvi.Can there be a clearer case of UI > > Israel Erdenbaum > > Do explain, as L27B1a, under which the ruling would be made, specifically > states that 16C2 does not apply. Since 16C2 is the law which would > explicitly make the withdrawn insufficient call UI, how can it not apply, > unless the withdrawn insufficient call is AI? > > We can play semantic games and look at the intro to L16, which states that > players are entitled to base their calls and plays on information from legal > calls or plays, and an insufficient call is not a legal call...but that's > just word games. If the intent of the lawmakers was to have the withdrawn > insufficient call be UI, it makes no sense to suspend 16C2, which would have > accomplished exactly that, for the purposes of the ruling, . > > I await your explanation with some eagerness. > > Regards, > > Hirsch > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 30 00:09:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TD9H304633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:09:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TD98H04611 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:09:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47902.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.30]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2TCw2D12715 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:58:02 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA4650C.9010203@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:58:52 +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] Insufficient bid References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jeremy Rickard wrote: > David Stevenson writes: > > >> W N E S >> 1H P 1H >> >> The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to >>know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and >>opened. >> >> South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the >>bidding proceeds: >> >> W N E S >> 1H P 1H >> 2H P >> 4H AP >> >> West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice >>dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an >>average: in fact the same result as every other table. >> >> What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result >>in any way? >> >> If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the >>question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a >>very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not >>agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original >>question, are members of BLML. >> > > I think those who want to adjust the score *because of UI* must be > wrong. The parenthetical remark in L27B1(a) ["Law 16C2 does not apply > to this situation, ..."] seems to tell us pretty clearly that > information from the withdrawn 1H bid is authorized. > > Could those who want to adjust on the basis of L27B1(b) give an > example of a situation where they think the parenthetical remark has > some effect? The correct interpretation of L27B1 can't be "it's not > UI, but adjust the score just as though it is UI", otherwise why is it > not UI? > Because it is not necessarily the 1He bid that is the UI, it is the manner in which it was made. If someone raises partner's 1He to 2He, only to discover that meanwhile 2NT has been bid, then the 2He does not convey much more information than the 3He now will. If L16 would be in operation, then partner could be severely restricted. Which is why a softer version of UI was introduced into L21. But this case is too much. > The only reasonable way I can think of to interpret this law in this > case is as follows: > > Information from the withdrawn 1H bid is AI, so the OS are allowed to > use it. Were the NOS damaged? Probably not, as it sounds as though the > table result was exactly what would have happened without the > insufficient bid. So result stands. > > If, on the other hand, the opening bidder, knowing that his partner > had a good hand from the withdrawn 1H bid, had used the extra bidding > space that the strong 2H response gave him to bid a making slam that > he would not have managed without the insufficient bid, then the NOS > would have been damaged, and the score should be adjusted on the basis > of L27B1(b). > > Jeremy. > > > -- 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 Mar 30 00:33:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TDX7k07251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:33:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TDWvH07231 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:32:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16qwKe-0000EV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:22:16 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020329081328.00b73500@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 08:23:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" In-Reply-To: <00b701c1d6af$38c5ea00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328162729.00b888f0@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 06:20 PM 3/28/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" >...... > > You cannot know that something which has occurred was likely to have > > resulted from something you did if you do not know that you did > > it. "The irregularity" cannot have caused damage if the irregularity > > did not occur. Consequently, you cannot know that the irregularity > has > > (or might have) caused damage if you do not know that the irregularity > > occurred. L72B1 requires more than merely that the irregularity might > > have caused damage; it requires that the offender could have known > that > > it might do so. > >I am sorry, I 'm not sure I can manage to follow your reasoning (it is >getting late here in Norway BTW) > >If I am been summoned to a table because declarer lead from dummy >instead of (correctly) from his own hand and RHO has also played to >that trick I do not care whether declarer says he was not aware that >he did an irregularity or not. I rule that if he has managed to obtain an >unjustified advantage by leading from dummy "he could have known", >and I use Law 72B1 accordingly. > >And if he tries to pull an argument that I cannot use L72B1 because >he was not aware that he did an irregularity I shall hold him too for a >violation of Law 74B1 instead, and still adjust the score under L72B1. > > > > > >It simply covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage > > >from an irregularity, and that advantage could have been foreseen > > >at the time. > > > > It covers all cases where he has an unjustified advantage, and > where he > > could have foreseen that advantage. It does not cover cases where > > someone else, with different (even if that means, as in this case, > > correct) information, could have foreseen that advantage but the > > offender could not have. > >Do I have to dot the i's and cross the o's? Was it that difficult to >understand that when I wrote "could have been foreseen" 8 lines >up it implied "by the offender"? > > > > > >The example is very good in such respects: It does not matter > > >whether the irregularity is intentional or accidental, the fact is > that > > >leading from the wrong hand is the only way declarer can cash his > > >club tricks. Those tricks give him an unjustified gain, and he "could" > > >at the time of the error have been aware of that. Hence L72B1 > > > > > >Now as the NOS is concerned: If they have "accepted" the lead out > > >of turn by playing a card to the trick they have violated Law 74B1, > > >and Law 53 denies them any redress for the lead out of turn. > > > > I wouldn't be so quick to apply to L74B1 to the NOs. After all, they > > were presumably far less inattentive than the offender, who misplayed > > without being misprompted by an immediately preceding misplay by the > > other side -- unless, of course, the declarer was violating L74B2, > > which is a far more serious offense than mere inattentiveness. One > > might argue, albeit, IMO, not terribly convincingly, that leading out > > of turn presumptively meets the threshhold of L74B1, but arguing that > > following suit to a lead out of turn does so strikes me as taking a > > rather extreme position. > >Are you serious? Do you ask directors to qualify the amount of >attention required by law 74B1? "Insufficient attention" is demonstrated >once you fail to notice an important event (like LOOT) during the game. > >We do not punish "insufficient attention" directly (it is forgiveable), >but nor do we compensate for losses due to "insufficient attention". > > > > > L53 (and L60, similarly) does indeed deny NOS any redress *for the > > LOOT*. But it does not say that they forfeit the right to redress for > > any irregularity. If the offender has simultaneously violated both > > L44G and L72B1, the NOS loses the right to redress for the former > > offense (leading out of turn), but not for the latter (committing an > > irregularity which he "could have known" etc.) > >????? NOS (defender) loses no right to redress unless he violates >Law74B1 (in this case). L72B1 is used on the declarer, there is no >reason to use it on the defenders. > > > > > >The only way to set scores here is by using split score. > > > > Where on Earth can we find in this situation any possible irregularity > > absent which a result could have been obtained which was "at all > > probable" but not "likely"? Under L12C2, that is the only allowable > > basis for assigning a split score. One can reasonably argue that the > > score should be split under L12C3 where it is in force, but one cannot > > reasonbly argue that doing anything at all under L12C3 "to do equity" > > is ever "the only way". > >L12C2 does just fine. >Declarer will not keep his unjustified favourable score, but defense >will not be correspondingly compensated because of L53 and L74B1. If the above line of reasoning were correct, one would be obligated not just to "take away" declarer's table score, but to add a second, additional penalty for violating L74B1, equal to the penalty imposed on the NOs. Or is Sven suggesting that failing to notice an opponent's LOOT is "paying insufficient attention to the game" subject to penalty while actually leading out of turn yourself is not? Indeed, by Sven's reasoning, any time a LOOT is covered before it is noticed, L74B1 would require us to penalize 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 Mar 30 00:45:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TDjWM08785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:45:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TDjNH08766 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:45:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.173]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTQ006G1LPKUQ@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:34:34 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:32:46 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Laurie Kelso Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002901c1d726$48d2fb00$484c003e@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: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "both 1H openings are natural" on this you are asked to rule.BTW this is one of the easiest things to ascertain whether E pulled the wrong card or he thgought he was opening. ---The conditions for applying 27 B1(b) have been fulfilled. The TD needs to be careful that he gets all the relevant facts. But he also should be careful to draw the right conclusions and in this case that meant that he should warn E that if he bids 2 H his partner will have to pass. If the TD did that , E would have bid 4H, and there would be no story. Regards IsraelErdenbaum Tel Aviv-- Original Message ----- From: "Laurie Kelso" To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 1:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > At 20:53 28/03/02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > W N E S > > 1H P 1H > > > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > >know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > >opened. > > > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > >bidding proceeds: > > > > W N E S > > 1H P 1H > > 2H P > > 4H AP > > > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > >dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > >average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > >in any way? > > I'll go against what appears to be the initial majority and say that I am > not adjusting! Law 16C2 doesn't apply to the withdrawn 1H bid and I am not > convinced that the conditions for adjusting under Law 27B1(b) have been > fulfilled. > > What indication is there to West that East has an opening bid (rather thasimple 2H raise)? > > The Director also needs to be careful that he doesn't generate real UI with > the manner of his inquiries about the insufficient 1H bid. > > Laurie > (In Australia) > > > > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the > >question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a > >very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not > >agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original > >question, are members of 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 01:14:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TEE7S12871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:14:07 +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 g2TEDwH12857 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:13:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.51.20] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qwy9-000Jgp-00; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:03:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c1d72a$ff715420$1433e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Grant Sterling" , Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020328114121.00a53ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:05:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Cc: "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psyches and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > Grattan, are you really saying: > a) If a NBO makes a regulation that violates the Laws > of Bridge there is absolutely nothing the WBF can do about > it, and > +=+ At the present time the WBF President is asking us to seek a better universal consistency by way of precept and persuasion - via the CoP (and its associated jurisprudence which should be in the public domain within a day or two). There is no thought in Law and Regulation matters of wielding a big stick - and I personally believe that any such attempt would do far more damage than good. In my experience there has been a longstanding conviction at WBF level that we should seek to explain and interpret the laws but not intervene in their execution by NBOs; the current stance is the culmination of all that. +=+ > > b) Your proposed solution is to re-write the Laws? > . > 'b' makes absolutely no sense to me. If the NBO doesn't > respect the laws of the game to begin with, how can re-writing > the laws of the game do any good? Unless you're going to re-write > the laws to accommodate the NBO. > +=+ It has long been known that when Kaplan told me we could not trust the NBO of the Island of Madura* to regulate systems for itself, I countered that NBOs are adult organizations and should be treated as such. Whilst by the 'Island of Madura' I understood him to mean the ACBL, my case foundered on an account given by Dirk Schroeder of what 'they' did then in Germany (what *he* did?) allowing EK to ridicule any idea of setting 'mature' NBOs free. I still believe I was right and that NBOs should be treated as grown up, even though a few of them prove wayward, and I refuse to accept suggestions that bodies as important as the EBL and the ACBL should be put in strait jackets (which last was Edgar's policy as expressed to me). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ * he changed the name from time to 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 Sat Mar 30 02:09:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TF9IW19290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:09:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TF99H19266 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:09:09 +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 g2SFFUo30783 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 15:15:30 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:47:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328095359.00b788a0@pop.starpower.net> <006901c1d68a$0ad75680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <001f01c1d6dd$284c73a0$895f003e@erdnbaum> <008601c1d6f2$703907e0$895f003e@erdnbaum> In-Reply-To: <008601c1d6f2$703907e0$895f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <008601c1d6f2$703907e0$895f003e@erdnbaum>, Israel Erdnbaum writes >Do you know a TD that will give the NOS a top.Do you know a TD that will >change their score when they happen to get a cold bottom. To do that you >need a simpler code of Laws for recreational bridge. >Will you root for it ,John. >cheers >Israel I play quite a bit of rubber bridge too. I much prefer the rubber bridge Laws to the Duplicate ones. Properly applied, they are much closer to the recreational Laws you're looking for, Israel. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 02:18:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TFHeY20198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:17:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TFHSH20176 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:17:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qxxm-0003Wd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:06:46 +0000 Received: from modem-78.golden-cleaner.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.19.78] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qxxj-0000Vq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:06:45 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21874; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:09:45 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <3CA4650C.9010203@village.uunet.be> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 29 Mar 2002 15:07:07 +0000 In-Reply-To: Herman De Wael's message of "Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:58:52 +0100" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 110 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes: > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > David Stevenson writes: > > > > > >> W N E S > >> 1H P 1H > >> > >> The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > >>know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > >>opened. > >> > >> South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > >>bidding proceeds: > >> > >> W N E S > >> 1H P 1H > >> 2H P > >> 4H AP > >> > >> West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > >>dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > >>average: in fact the same result as every other table. > >> > >> What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > >>in any way? > >> > >> If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the > >>question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a > >>very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not > >>agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original > >>question, are members of BLML. > >> > > > > I think those who want to adjust the score *because of UI* must be > > wrong. The parenthetical remark in L27B1(a) ["Law 16C2 does not apply > > to this situation, ..."] seems to tell us pretty clearly that > > information from the withdrawn 1H bid is authorized. > > > > Could those who want to adjust on the basis of L27B1(b) give an > > example of a situation where they think the parenthetical remark has > > some effect? The correct interpretation of L27B1 can't be "it's not > > UI, but adjust the score just as though it is UI", otherwise why is it > > not UI? > > > > > Because it is not necessarily the 1He bid that is the UI, it is the > manner in which it was made. I accept that the manner in which the bid was made could convey UI. However, David knows enough to give us all the relevant information, and he didn't tell us that the manner of the bid was such as to give UI, so why on earth should we assume that there was any UI from the manner of the bid? Let's answer the question as asked, without making up additional irregularities. > If someone raises partner's 1He to 2He, only to discover that > meanwhile 2NT has been bid, then the 2He does not convey much more > information than the 3He now will. L27 doesn't say that information from the withdrawn bid is not UI if there is not much of it. It says that information from the withdrawn bid is not UI. > If L16 would be in operation, then partner could be severely > restricted. Which is why a softer version of UI was introduced into > L21. You mean L27? > But this case is too much. It seems to me that those who think it is "too much" are scandalized by the use of "UI", even though the laws say that it is not UI. I don't think it would be a particularly bad law to deem the information from the withdrawn bid to be UI. But the present laws tell us that it isn't. But I also don't see that my interpretation of the existing law is a particularly bad law: Information from the withdrawn bid is authorized (so the insufficient bid, not any subsequent use of information from the withdrawn bid) is the only infraction. An adjusted score should only be awarded if, because of the information from the withdrawn bid, the NOS get a worse score than they would have done without the infraction. After all, most of the time the OS will be on unfamiliar bidding ground, so their subsequent bidding is likely to be less accurate than it would have been without the insufficient bid. If it *is* more accurate because of the extra information, there will be an adjusted score. Occasionally they will get lucky by guessing (without using the information from the withdrawn bid), just as when the insufficient bidder guesses the final contract in L27B2 situations, but in the long run it seems clear to me that the NOS would benefit. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 02:18:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TFHiK20206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:17:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TFHWH20187 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 02:17:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qxxr-0003XX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:06:51 +0000 Received: from modem-78.golden-cleaner.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.19.78] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16qxxk-0000Vp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:06:51 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA21873; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:09:45 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@erdnbaum> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 29 Mar 2002 14:12:23 +0000 In-Reply-To: Israel Erdnbaum's message of "Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:36:45 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 16 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum writes: > The insufficient bid gave the information that W has a 1H opening bid , if > this isn't UI what is ? Since Law 27 B1(a) specifically tells us information from the 1H bid is *not* UI, the answer to that question is "quite a lot". > Read please Law 27 B1(b) I have. It says nothing about UI. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 03:18:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TGHZ226669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:17:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TGHRH26653 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:17:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-vcaui8g.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.73.16] helo=davishi) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16qytj-0005eF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:06:39 -0500 Message-ID: <006e01c1d73b$9253eae0$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3CA4650C.9010203@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:05:37 -0500 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: Friday, March 29, 2002 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > Could those who want to adjust on the basis of L27B1(b) give an > > example of a situation where they think the parenthetical remark has > > some effect? The correct interpretation of L27B1 can't be "it's not > > UI, but adjust the score just as though it is UI", otherwise why is it > > not UI? > > > > > Because it is not necessarily the 1He bid that is the UI, it is the > manner in which it was made. > If someone raises partner's 1He to 2He, only to discover that > meanwhile 2NT has been bid, then the 2He does not convey much more > information than the 3He now will. > If L16 would be in operation, then partner could be severely > restricted. Which is why a softer version of UI was introduced into L21. > But this case is too much. > This is overly simplistic, Herman. 16C2 doesn't limit this any further than your interpretation of L27B1b...in fact you're using 27B1b as a substitute for 16C2, which we are told does not apply. I like Jeremy's interpretation a lot better: if the information provided by the withdrawn call provides information that allows the OS to reach a contract that they could normally not reach in their system, the opponents have been damaged by the call, then adjust using 27B1b. I can live with that interpretation. L27B1b does't give a softer interpretation of UI. It substitutes a vague description of the conditions under which adjustment should occur for a concrete one: 16C2. IMO, always a bad idea. If the idea is to have some sort of objective standard in the laws, then discard 27B1b, and simply leave the withdrawn call as UI. This would make a ruling much simpler, and both the players and the TD would have some idea what the ruling was about and what their obligations are after the correction of the call. The vague "adjust if the NOS was damaged" is too often code for "the OS can't get a good score on this board"; an inevitable situation when we have laws with consequences that are triggered by the results of the hand, rather than the nature of the infraction. ISTM a possible interpretation of what the lawmakers might be trying to do is to say is "We're not making the withdrawn call UI, but we want you to bid as though the call had never happened, without the restrictions of L16. Bid as though the insufficient call had never occurred, even if it means making a call that has been suggested over a logical alternative by the withdrawn call". I believe this to be a restatement of your idea of what the "softer" version of UI is in L27...but UI is not mentioned in L27 anywhere, except for the exclusion of 16C2. If this is what the lawmakers wanted, wouldn't it have been simpler to just say it? Instead, they appear to have explicitly made the withdrawn call AI...and here we are. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 03:22:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TGMFS27082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:22:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TGM6H27070 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:22:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-vcaui8g.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.73.16] helo=davishi) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16qyyL-0001cp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:11:25 -0500 Message-ID: <007201c1d73c$3cfe6880$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <003a01c1d6de$bb925de0$895f003e@erdnbaum> <000d01c1d6f6$d7e6a380$0a01a8c0@davishi> <001201c1d719$176da360$484c003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:10:25 -0500 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: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: ; "Hirsch Davis" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 6:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Hope you read my answer to Zvi .What I want to tell you is this .Firstly > make up your mind about what happened and then try to find the appropriate > Law . > As I pointed out in my post to Zvi the real problem is why W was not warned > by the TD . See also Law 27 B 2. > Best regards Actually, the real problem is that with the Laws as presently written, the TD has no real idea what to warn the player about. The TD cannot tell the player not to use AI! The vague standard in 27B2b has been substituted for the concrete one of 16C2...not a good thing, IMO. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 03:31:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TGUmF27968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:30:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TGUdH27950 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:30:40 +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 g2TGJsM28155; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:19:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 10:59:59 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" To: Israel Erdnbaum , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000601c1d6da$830bfca0$895f003e@erdnbaum> Message-ID: <20020329111958-R01050000-E7184300-4306-11D6-B93E-C32D725BB307-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/29/02 at 6:30 AM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > "leaving the NOS to stew in it's own juice" especially when NOS can > be an elderly novice ,or even just an elderly person is not made more > palatable because KAPLAN did it once ,or if he even did it many times. What in God's name has being elderly got to do with anything? 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 Mar 30 03:33:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TGXGY28236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:33:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TGX7H28222 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:33:07 +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 LAA24464 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:22:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA00895 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:22:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 11:22:23 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203291622.LAA00895@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > W N E S > 1H P 1H ... > If you think it is obvious, please, First reaction: "it's obvious; L16C2." Second reaction: "David is asking, let's RTFLB." L27B1a says L16C2 does not apply! (Oh, sh--, wrong again!) But what about 27B1b? There's no doubt the insufficient bid "conveyed such information." That was what told West to go on. But what about "damage the non- offending side?" This is the crux of the matter; from what moment do we measure damage? This is *not* obvious. I think the CoP gives us guidance: damage is measured from the moment just prior to the infraction. As Jeremy points out, the only infraction is the IB itself. Just prior to that, we can expect the NOS to reach the routine 4H, so there is no damage. Result stands. The ruling would be different if 4H were difficult to bid. I think another way to reach the same result is to assign an adjusted score under 27B1b and 12C2. OK, the auction has gone 1H-P-, and now there's an infraction, so everything else is ignored. What score will you assign to each side? Clearly 4H+1 in this case (if the facts are as David represents), but it might be different (including split scores or weighted scores if allowed) on different facts. The key point is the one Jeremy makes: there is no infraction _after_ the IB because 16C2 does not apply. Thus an adjusted score, if any, is based on expectation _prior to_ the IB. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 03:42:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TGg1l29160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:42:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TGfqH29141 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:41:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mel-rta4.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.58) by mel-rto3.wanadoo.fr; 29 Mar 2002 17:31:05 +0100 Received: from olivier (193.249.226.151) by mel-rta4.wanadoo.fr; 29 Mar 2002 17:30:43 +0100 Message-ID: <011101c1d73e$ccf77c40$fc50f9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "Laws" Subject: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:28:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk For me it's clear cut : Score stands. L 27 B 1 a says if E bid 2H, no penalty AND L 16 C 2 doesn't apply. So, why change? You can use 27B1b if they use space to find a better substitute contract whitch was not available (6H, 6C in 4-3, 3NT, etc.) Olivier. ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: > Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2002 9:53 PM Subject: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > W N E S > > 1H P 1H > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > > know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > opened. > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > > bidding proceeds: > > W N E S > 1H P 1H > > 2H P > 4H AP > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > > in any way? > > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the > question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a > very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not > > agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original > question, are members of BLML. > > -- > 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 Sat Mar 30 04:20:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2THJTm03372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:19:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2THJKH03351 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:19:21 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <200203291719.g2THJKH03351@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 6161 invoked by uid 0); 29 Mar 2002 17:08:33 -0000 Received: from pd954ccc4.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.84.204.196) by mail.gmx.net (mp013-rz3) with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 17:08:33 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: Gordon Bower , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:04:04 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <3CA11299.DF95C411@t-online.de> In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.12b) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from Quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2THJNH03359 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Gordon, hi all, On 28 Mar 02, at 18:50, Gordon Bower wrote: > I apologize for again stirring this pot. But I confess I am very disturbed > by it. Since you are interested in the matter here how Italy handles it. I avoid to say every time the exception for HUM's since only very very few bridge players will face a tourney where they are allowed. All quotes are taken from: http://www.federbridge.it/FIGB/regolamenti/normeintegraive.pdf Here first a little preface about the classification of systems: ---quote---- Si precisa che nei sistemi permessi dalla F.I.G.B., in adeguamento alle norme internazionali, le aperture a livello 1 (uno) non sono più assoggettate alla Regola del 18 ---end quote---- Translates to: To be in accorandance with the international rules the openings at the level of one are not longer under the rule of 18 (You can read a little bit earlier in the document that an opening at the first level must have at least 8 HCP, also 1NT) ----quote---- h) Psichiche Per “psichica” s’intende una uscita volontaria o involontaria dal sistema sia come lunghezza di colore che come forza/punteggio della mano. Nelle dichiarazioni convenzionali, non sono considerate “psichiche” le variazioni di punteggio non superiori a 3 (tre) p.o. in più o in meno rispetto al livello stabilito. Nelle gare classificate di 2° e di 3° categoria, non sono permesse: 1) Psichiche protette o previste dal sistema (eventuale Broown Sticker) 2) Psichiche in aperture previste da sistema come Brown Sticker. 3) Psichiche in aperture o in interventi convenzionali (N.B. in questo caso anche un errore di licita viene considerato come psichica). 4) Psichica di punteggio in aperture naturali (7 punti o meno in aperture a livello di 1, e 4 punti o meno in aperture a livello di 2 in sottoapertura). ----end quote---- In Italy tourney are suddivided in 3 levels,the highest is the 1° categoria and applies only to the italain team championship for national level players. All others are the 2° and 3° categoria. So de facto in most tourneys point 4 applies Raw translation of relevant point for this thread: not allowed psychs 4) A point psych in natural openings (7 or less points at the first level, and 4 points or less in weak openings at the second level). So it seems to me that many federations are going the way to allow you to psych an opening only if you have at least some points. Hoping to have not made great mistakes ;-) 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 Sat Mar 30 04:43:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2THhAX05879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:43:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2THh1H05858 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:43:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA11827; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:32:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000d01c1d747$a72a4660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , , "Laurie Kelso" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> <002901c1d726$48d2fb00$484c003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:32:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > "both 1H openings are natural" on this you are asked to rule.BTW this is one > of the easiest things to ascertain whether E pulled the wrong card or he > thgought he was opening. > ---The conditions for applying 27 B1(b) have been fulfilled. > The TD needs to be careful that he gets all the relevant facts. > But he also should be careful to draw the right conclusions and in this case > that meant that he should warn E that if he bids 2 H his partner will have > to pass. If the TD did that , E would have bid 4H, and there would be no > story. West would not (automatically) have to pass if East bid 2H. West can select any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the information that East has significantly more values than shown by his 2H bid. That this in the actual case means West has to pass because he had a minimum opening is a different story. What the Director should clarify to East before East selects his corrected call is that if he choses to bid 2H, West has a duty to carefully select his subsequenct calls on the "knowledge" that East has cards for a normal raise and nothing more. 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 Mar 30 04:43:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2THhch05944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:43:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from j9exch3.je.jfcom.mil (j9exch3.je.jfcom.mil [137.247.242.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2THhTH05922 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:43:30 +1100 (EST) Received: by j9exch3.je.jfcom.mil with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:33:17 -0500 Message-ID: <86C9C6EDBC4ED511A2CD006008F6D8A8016AADB9@j9exch3.je.jfcom.mil> From: "Lane Joseph H. J9C642" To: "'Israel Erdnbaum'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Laurie Kelso Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 12:33:11 -0500 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 Interesting situation only because East is an idiot...he should have bid 4 hearts. When he chose to bid only two, the TD should have advised W that he must bid as if the auction had gone 1H-2H. West was unethical (apparently, we cannot see his hand) in that he used unauthorized information to bid 4H. N-S were not damaged so are not entitled to an adjusted score. I believe a committee would have assigned EW an adjusted score, however, for bidding only 2H. Joe Lane > At 20:53 28/03/02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > W N E S > > 1H P 1H > > > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > >know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > >opened. > > > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > >bidding proceeds: > > > > W N E S > > 1H P 1H > > 2H P > > 4H AP > > > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > >dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > >average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > >in any way? > > > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the > >question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a > >very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not > >agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original > >question, are members of BLML. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 04:46:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2THk9f06224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:46:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2THjxH06199 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:46:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA01774 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:35:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001701c1d748$1508cd00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:35:11 +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 From: "Jeremy Rickard" > Israel Erdnbaum writes: > > > The insufficient bid gave the information that W has a 1H opening bid , if > > this isn't UI what is ? > > Since Law 27 B1(a) specifically tells us information from the 1H bid > is *not* UI, the answer to that question is "quite a lot". > > > Read please Law 27 B1(b) > > I have. It says nothing about UI. It talks about information causing damage to NOS. That holds. 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 Mar 30 04:54:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2THscR07115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:54:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2THsSH07102 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 04:54:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA17874; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:43:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001d01c1d749$44bff5e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "Jeremy Rickard" References: <3CA4650C.9010203@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:43:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Jeremy Rickard" > Herman De Wael writes: > > > Jeremy Rickard wrote: > > > > > David Stevenson writes: > > > > > > > > >> W N E S > > >> 1H P 1H > > >> > > >> The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > > >>know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > > >>opened. > > >> > > >> South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > > >>bidding proceeds: > > >> > > >> W N E S > > >> 1H P 1H > > >> 2H P > > >> 4H AP > > >> > > >> West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > > >>dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > > >>average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > >> > > >> What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > > >>in any way? > > >> > > >> If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the > > >>question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a > > >>very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not > > >>agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original > > >>question, are members of BLML. > > >> > > > > > > I think those who want to adjust the score *because of UI* must be > > > wrong. The parenthetical remark in L27B1(a) ["Law 16C2 does not apply > > > to this situation, ..."] seems to tell us pretty clearly that > > > information from the withdrawn 1H bid is authorized. > > > > > > Could those who want to adjust on the basis of L27B1(b) give an > > > example of a situation where they think the parenthetical remark has > > > some effect? The correct interpretation of L27B1 can't be "it's not > > > UI, but adjust the score just as though it is UI", otherwise why is it > > > not UI? > > > > > > > > > Because it is not necessarily the 1He bid that is the UI, it is the > > manner in which it was made. > > I accept that the manner in which the bid was made could convey > UI. However, David knows enough to give us all the relevant > information, and he didn't tell us that the manner of the bid was such > as to give UI, so why on earth should we assume that there was any UI > from the manner of the bid? He told us that East, if asked would confirm he had not seen the opening bid by West and thought himself to be in an opening bid position. OK? > > Let's answer the question as asked, without making up additional > irregularities. > > > If someone raises partner's 1He to 2He, only to discover that > > meanwhile 2NT has been bid, then the 2He does not convey much more > > information than the 3He now will. > > L27 doesn't say that information from the withdrawn bid is not UI if > there is not much of it. It says that information from the withdrawn > bid is not UI. > > > If L16 would be in operation, then partner could be severely > > restricted. Which is why a softer version of UI was introduced into > > L21. > > You mean L27? > Forget about UI, Law 27B1(b) doesn't use that term. It talks about information causing damage to NOS. If the replacing call conveys information essentially different from that of the retracted call, and this difference causes damage to NOS then L27B1(b) dictates that the Director shall(!) assign an adjusted score. Partner to the offender can avoid this situation by treating all the information from the retracted call as if it is UI. 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 Mar 30 05:21:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TIKNT09943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 05:20:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2TIKCH09922 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 05:20:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 18591 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2002 18:09:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c1) (217.129.63.158) by front1.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 18:09:25 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:08:50 -0000 Message-ID: <000401c1d74c$e26d8840$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <001d01c1d749$44bff5e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2TIKGH09929 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There is an interesting question in the thread... The TD should not ask East about the 1H bid in a way as to make himself the vehicle of unauthorized information, that is, he should take East out of the table. The reason why East bid 1H is not important AT the table. From West´s point of view, no questions asked at the table, East could just want to bid 2H instead of 1H... So, if the question by the TD is asked away from the players, no problem with the 2H bid... The UI can show up because of the questions about the second 1H bid... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 06:10:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TJAZA15448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 06:10:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TJAQH15436 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 06:10:27 +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 NAA03235 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:59:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA01058 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:59:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:59:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203291859.NAA01058@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > West can select > any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the > information that East has significantly more values than shown by his 2H > bid. Which Law says this, please? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 07:02:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TK1hZ21628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:01:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front2.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2TK1WH21600 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:01:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 24127 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2002 19:50:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c1) (217.129.63.158) by front2.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 19:50:36 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 19:50:54 -0000 Message-ID: <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> 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, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <200203291859.NAA01058@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk .> From: "Sven Pran" .> West can select .> any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the .> information that East has significantly more values than shown by his .> 2H bid. .Which Law says this, please? -- Furthermore, how does West know that East has significantly more values? Ahhhhhhhh..... The TD told it at the table?... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 07:13:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TKCx422848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:12:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TKCoH22829 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:12:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA08757 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:02:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003901c1d75c$98a81580$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203291859.NAA01058@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:02:03 +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 From: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Sven Pran" > > West can select > > any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the > > information that East has significantly more values than shown by his 2H > > bid. > > Which Law says this, please? Law 27B1(b) requests the Director to assign an adjusted score if he finds that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side. The non-offending side can be damaged this way if the insufficient bid conveyed information very different from the information conveyed by the replacing bid, and if such damaging information is used in such a way by the offender's partner that the offending side receives a score on the board better than they would have received without using this information. If the information from the insufficient bid was essentially the same as the information from the replacing bid there cannot have been any damaging information from the insufficient bid. And if offender's partner makes no use of the information conveyed by the insufficient bid, then there cannot have been any damage caused by this information. 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 Mar 30 07:18:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TKI7X23362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:18:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TKHwH23347 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:17:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09648; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:07:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Rui Marques" , References: <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:07:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Rui Marques" > .> West can select > .> any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the > .> information that East has significantly more values than shown by his > > .> 2H bid. > > .Which Law says this, please? It follows from Law 27B1(b) I just posted a reply to Steve answering this question > -- > Furthermore, how does West know that East has significantly more values? > Ahhhhhhhh..... The TD told it at the table?... No, according to the original description it was evident to everybody at the table that East had overlooked the opening bid by West and made his own opening bid of 1H. David wrote that if asked, East would confirm this. But my experience as TD tells me that TD doesn't need to ask such questions directly, he will know by the attitude of the players when he arrives at the table. 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 Mar 30 07:19:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TKJiP23535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:19:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TKJZH23516 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:19:35 +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 PAA06430 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:08:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA01124 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:08:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 15:08:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Law 27B1(b) requests the Director to assign an adjusted score if he > finds that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage > the non-offending side. > > The non-offending side can be damaged this way if the insufficient bid > conveyed information very different from the information conveyed by > the replacing bid, and if such damaging information is used in such a > way by the offender's partner that the offending side receives a score > on the board better than they would have received without using this > information. This is not everyone's interpretation, but let that go for now. OK, say you assign an adjusted score under L27B1b and 12C2. What score shall it be? Please consider very carefully what the infraction is. (Hint: the withdrawn bid is AI because L16C2 does not apply. Also, the operation of law -- in this case, that responder was constrained to bid 2H or else bar opener -- is also AI.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 07:56:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TKu1s27874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 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 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 g2TKtpH27858 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:55:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.75.94]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTR009635N2BS@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:45:04 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:43:11 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: ayala hiler , Steve Willner , Mark Horton , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002a01c1d762$6ae2cd60$5e4b003e@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: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@erdnbaum> <001701c1d748$1508cd00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hair splitting lawyer I am not ,somehow I thought you aren't either . Bid goes 1H - 2H [6-10 ;3+H] but he knows that partner has 12+ and 5+ H .I am not a lawyer not a Director but I am a referee and in my Club he'd never score MORE than 2 +3. I sure hope I"ll find justification in the *good* book. Will you help looking for it. Thanks Israel Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > From: "Jeremy Rickard" > > Israel Erdnbaum writes: > > > > > The insufficient bid gave the information that W has a 1H opening bid , > if > > > this isn't UI what is ? > > > > Since Law 27 B1(a) specifically tells us information from the 1H bid > > is *not* UI, the answer to that question is "quite a lot". > > > > > Read please Law 27 B1(b) > > > > I have. It says nothing about UI. > > It talks about information causing damage to NOS. That holds. > > 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 Sat Mar 30 08:06:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TL60428933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:06:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TL5pH28915 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:05:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA09520; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:54:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:54:33 +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: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Law 27B1(b) requests the Director to assign an adjusted score if he > > finds that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage > > the non-offending side. > > > > The non-offending side can be damaged this way if the insufficient bid > > conveyed information very different from the information conveyed by > > the replacing bid, and if such damaging information is used in such a > > way by the offender's partner that the offending side receives a score > > on the board better than they would have received without using this > > information. > > This is not everyone's interpretation, but let that go for now. > > OK, say you assign an adjusted score under L27B1b and 12C2. What score > shall it be? Please consider very carefully what the infraction is. There is no "infraction" causing the use of L27B1b, the infraction is properly handled by L27B1a. But there is an "irregularity" following from this: The irregularity for the purpose of assigning an adjusted score under law 27B1(b) is NOT the insufficient bid itself, but the impossibility to correct this bid under Law 27B1(a) without giving (to offender's partner) extraneous information and the fact that this information have damaged opponents the way the auction continued. (No West in the world would have bid game with a minimum opening hand knowing that partner just had for a raise to 2H). East in our case has the impossible choice between plague and cholera: He can correct his bid to 2H, grossly underbidding his values but leaving partner free to bid on, only partner then is not allowed to "know" that East has opening values. Or he can bid anything else directly and thereby exclude partner from any further participation in the auction. But how does he know whether they shall be in 4H or 6H, there is nothing to tell East that partner does not have a 19HCP opening? Actually, IMO the sequence 1H - 2H - 4H indicates that the opening hand is around 19HCP (assuming that 2H shows 6-9), and with 13+ HCP East has no excuse for letting the auction die at game. I might even consider an adjustment to 6H down one as the "correct" result on this board, but there is no way I shall ever accept 4H as the contract when the case is as described by David in his original post. (Note that if West had had a 19HCP opening hand I would have accepted an auction: 1H - 1H* corrected to 2H 4H - 6H AP, slam made with 12 or 13 tricks. And it would not make any difference if East after the 4H bid took command with Blackwood or something before landing in 6H) 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 Mar 30 08:11:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLBXl29537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:11:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TLBOH29524 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:11:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.75.94]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTR008H26CW6S@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:00:34 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:59:15 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Cc: ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003701c1d764$971c4bc0$5e4b003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203291859.NAA01058@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Try to find a ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" Law that says that you can use only information which you received from lawful calls and actions .There must be such a law. Best regardswillner@cfa.harvard.edu> To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > From: "Sven Pran" > > West can select > > any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the > > information that East has significantly more values than shown by his 2H > > bid. > > Which Law says this, please? > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 30 08:22:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLLg000672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:21:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TLLWH00655 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:21:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.139]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTR008L16TT79@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:10:43 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:08:54 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Rui Marques Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004201c1d766$01e1dd20$5e4b003e@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=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If it goes 1H -P- 1H it's usually very clear what has happened. When do you open a course for TD. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rui Marques" To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 9:50 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > .> From: "Sven Pran" > .> West can select > .> any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the > .> information that East has significantly more values than shown by his > > .> 2H bid. > > .Which Law says this, please? > -- > Furthermore, how does West know that East has significantly more values? > Ahhhhhhhh..... The TD told it at the table?... > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 30 08:28:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLSUv01442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:28:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TLSLH01429 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:28:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA16494 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:17:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005301c1d767$25640600$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@erdnbaum> <001701c1d748$1508cd00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002a01c1d762$6ae2cd60$5e4b003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:17:31 +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 From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > Hair splitting lawyer I am not ,somehow I thought you aren't > either . I certainly hope not. When applying the laws I always try to know the purpose (or intention) with the laws, and as far as Law 27 is concerned I am convinced that the purpose of this law is to deny offender's partner to participate further in the auction after an insufficient bid because of the extraneous information he may have received from the insufficient bid and the subsequent correction. (You might compare the principles in laws 31 & 32). Law27B1 opens an exception to this principle: If the insufficient bid is corrected within very narrow limits then the partner may still participate in the auction. But then Law 27B1(b) plugs the loophole that if eventually it should be revealed that partner from the insufficient bid has had available to him information (not also conveyed by the replacing bid) and this information has caused damage to opponents, then the Director shall(!) assign an adjusted score. (Note the word "shall", here it does not say "may"). Bid goes 1H - 2H [6-10 ;3+H] but he knows that partner has 12+ > and 5+ H .I am not a lawyer not a Director but I am a referee and in my Club > he'd never score MORE than 2 +3. > I sure hope I"ll find justification in the > *good* book. > Will you help looking for it. IMO you have all the justification you need in Law 27B1(b) (And drop the futile search for UI - that is not the important point) 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 Mar 30 08:35:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLZQa02183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:35:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TLZFH02163 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:35:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA28890 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:24:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <005f01c1d768$1c5e5780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203291859.NAA01058@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003701c1d764$971c4bc0$5e4b003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:24:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > Try to find a Law that says that you can use only information which > you received from lawful calls and actions .There must be such a law. What about law 16 (the header portion) for a starter? Then you have Law 16A2 And finally(?) you can make a jump to Law 73A1 (There might be more) 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 Mar 30 08:36:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLagP02348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:36:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TLaYH02330 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:36:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-vcaui8g.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.73.16] helo=davishi) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16r3se-0001JF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:25:52 -0500 Message-ID: <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:24:50 -0500 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: "Sven Pran" To: "Steve Willner" ; Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > The irregularity for the purpose of assigning an adjusted score under law > 27B1(b) > is NOT the insufficient bid itself, but the impossibility to correct this > bid under > Law 27B1(a) without giving (to offender's partner) extraneous information > and the > fact that this information have damaged opponents the way the auction > continued. > (No West in the world would have bid game with a minimum opening hand > knowing > that partner just had for a raise to 2H). > > East in our case has the impossible choice between plague and cholera: He > can > correct his bid to 2H, grossly underbidding his values but leaving partner > free > to bid on, only partner then is not allowed to "know" that East has opening > values. You're still missing it. Why is W not allowed to know E has opening values? The Law that would make this UI has been suspended in this situation. It appears to be fully legal. ethical, and moral for W to possess and use this information. E is not underbidding anything, if the original call is AI. The 2H call may be the only way to get to the normal contract and actually bring the hand back to equity...what's wrong with that? Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 08:40:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLedP02792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:40:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TLeUH02774 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:40:31 +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 g2SLkqo31491 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:46:52 GMT Message-ID: <9QWO4tAOmNp8EwWM@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:15:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> <002901c1d726$48d2fb00$484c003e@erdnbaum> <000d01c1d747$a72a4660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000d01c1d747$a72a4660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000d01c1d747$a72a4660$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > >> "both 1H openings are natural" on this you are asked to rule.BTW this is >one >> of the easiest things to ascertain whether E pulled the wrong card or he >> thgought he was opening. >> ---The conditions for applying 27 B1(b) have been fulfilled. >> The TD needs to be careful that he gets all the relevant facts. >> But he also should be careful to draw the right conclusions and in this >case >> that meant that he should warn E that if he bids 2 H his partner will have >> to pass. If the TD did that , E would have bid 4H, and there would be no >> story. > > West would not (automatically) have to pass if East bid 2H. West can select >any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the >information that East has significantly more values than shown by his 2H >bid. That this in the actual case means West has to pass because he had >a minimum opening is a different story. > >What the Director should clarify to East before East selects his corrected >call is that if he choses to bid 2H, West has a duty to carefully select his >subsequenct calls on the "knowledge" that East has cards for a normal >raise and nothing more. > precisely so, Sven. ... and that he manifestly didn't shows his incompetence, as he must now rule 4H+1 for the offenders under "TD error" and 2H+3 for the NO's for the same reason. I find this thread particularly noxious that the BL's are going to ward 2H+3 to the OS because of the TD's incompetence. cheers john >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 08:44:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLicP03203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:44:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TLiSH03180 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:44:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.126]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTR009KU7W4BE@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:33:42 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:31:54 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <007c01c1d769$35e013a0$5e4b003e@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: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_/N/pFZSEjAqBA26mUXOX4w)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_/N/pFZSEjAqBA26mUXOX4w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Please remind me in what connection did I write it. I remember now it was about LOOT when declarer leads knowingly from the wrong hand. Well elderly people especially when novices love to play bridge Need to play bridge but they play to enjoy themselves and stewing in their juice is something they enjoy much less than other groups. --Boundary_(ID_/N/pFZSEjAqBA26mUXOX4w) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Please remind me in what connection did I write it.
I remember now it was about LOOT
when declarer leads knowingly from the wrong hand. Well elderly people especially when novices love to play bridge Need to play bridge but they play to enjoy themselves and stewing in their juice is something they enjoy much less than other groups.
--Boundary_(ID_/N/pFZSEjAqBA26mUXOX4w)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 08:46:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLkhS03447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:46:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TLkXH03429 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:46:34 +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 g2SLqto31498 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 21:52:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:22:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Rui Marques" > >> .> West can select >> .> any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the >> .> information that East has significantly more values than shown by his >> >> .> 2H bid. >> >> .Which Law says this, please? > >It follows from Law 27B1(b) > >I just posted a reply to Steve answering this question > >> -- >> Furthermore, how does West know that East has significantly more values? >> Ahhhhhhhh..... The TD told it at the table?... > >No, according to the original description it was evident to everybody at the >table that East had overlooked the opening bid by West and made his own >opening bid of 1H. David wrote that if asked, East would confirm this. But >my experience as TD tells me that TD doesn't need to ask such questions >directly, he will know by the attitude of the players when he arrives at the >table. > again, precisely so, Sven. We shouldn't be discussing this aspect at all. We're in the realms of 1H - 1H "O s**t, did you already open?" That was evident in DWS's original post. What should the TD have done when he made his ruling? ... and what did he do? is the real question. I maintain he completely failed to explain the interpretation of the Law to the offender - which to me at least is self-evident from the way the auction proceeded. What he should have done was to explain what would happen if .... ... but then you and I seem to be in accord on this point. cheers john >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 08:55:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLsls04303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:54:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TLsbH04290 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:54:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2TLhto08497 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:43:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 16:19:13 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <86C9C6EDBC4ED511A2CD006008F6D8A8016AADB9@j9exch3.je.jfcom.mil> Message-ID: <20020329164358-R01050000-2A3CDB00-4334-11D6-B93E-C32D725BB307-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/29/02 at 12:33 PM, lanej@je.jfcom.mil (Lane Joseph H. J9C642) wrote: > West was unethical (apparently, we cannot see his hand) in that he used > unauthorized information to bid 4H. I think that's a bit much, given that (IMO, at least, and some others apparently agree), the TD failed to fully explain the ramifications of the Law to West. I can envision a TD telling west "if east corrects to 2H, you can bid anything you want". For a TD to do that, and then adjust the score and accuse west of being unethical, well, no comment. 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 Mar 30 08:55:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TLt4Y04326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:55:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TLspH04309 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:54:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA00880 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:44:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:44:04 +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: "Hirsch Davis" > You're still missing it. Why is W not allowed to know E has opening values? > The Law that would make this UI has been suspended in this situation. It > appears to be fully legal. ethical, and moral for W to possess and use this > information. E is not underbidding anything, if the original call is AI. > The 2H call may be the only way to get to the normal contract and actually > bring the hand back to equity...what's wrong with that? Please consider law 27B1(b) and try to figure out what kind of information from an insufficient bid could cause damage to non-offending side. If you find none, then ask yourself what is the purpose of this law. My understanding, as should be well known by now, is that the information referred to in L27B1(b) includes any information conveyed by the insufficient bid which is not duplicated (approximately) identically by the replacement bid. (However, the question whether such information has caused damage to NOS is a separate issue which the Director is required to investigate). 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 Mar 30 09:12:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TMBui06054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:11:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TMBlH06041 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:11:48 +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 RAA15261 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:01:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA01251 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:01:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:01:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > The irregularity for the purpose of assigning an adjusted score under law > 27B1(b) > is NOT the insufficient bid itself, but the impossibility to correct this > bid under > Law 27B1(a) without giving (to offender's partner) extraneous information What extraneous information? There is nothing that forbids partner to make use of the information from the withdrawn bid. Instead there is an explicit statement that L16C2 does not apply. Now if responder really did say, "Oh, sh--, I didn't see your bid," that's UI. L16A applies as always in that case. > He > can > correct his bid to 2H, grossly underbidding his values but leaving partner > free > to bid on, only partner then is not allowed to "know" that East has opening > values. And once again, what Law tells us partner is not allowed to know that? It was my initial belief that there was such a law, but reading the FLB has convinced me otherwise. > What about law 16 (the header portion) for a starter? We know this is not complete. It doesn't mention the cards one holds, for one thing. Nor -- more on point -- does it mention illegal bids, which are clarified elsewhere to be AI in some cases and UI in others. > Then you have Law 16A2 Which clearly doesn't apply to a withdrawn bid. > And finally(?) you can make a jump to Law 73A1 Which implies that the information from the withdrawn 1H bid is AI. > Please consider law 27B1(b) and try to figure out what kind of information > from an insufficient bid could cause damage to non-offending side. Easy: information that could not be expressed in the normal bidding system. In this case, if the offenders have no way to bid a responding hand with opening values and support for partner's suit, then L27B1b would apply. Have you ever seen a bidding system with that defect? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 09:15:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TMElP06351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:14:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TMEcH06336 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:14:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2391.bb.online.no [80.212.217.87]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA03270 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:03:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <007301c1d76d$9b6b6b80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:03:49 +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: "John (MadDog) Probst" ..... > again, precisely so, Sven. We shouldn't be discussing this aspect at > all. We're in the realms of 1H - 1H "O s**t, did you already open?" That > was evident in DWS's original post. What should the TD have done when > he made his ruling? ... and what did he do? is the real question. > > I maintain he completely failed to explain the interpretation of the Law > to the offender - which to me at least is self-evident from the way the > auction proceeded. What he should have done was to explain what would > happen if .... > > ... but then you and I seem to be in accord on this point. Quite. But has it occurred to you that East may have had all alternatives properly explained to him (including L27B1(b) )? David said nothing about TD not explaining the relevant law(s). Frankly I suspect that East deliberatly chose to bid only 2H so that West would be free to participate further in the auction, only forgetting that with a minimum opening hand West would be obliged to pass over a simple raise. But with 16 HCP or extra distributional values West would legally bid 3H or a trial bid (invitational), and with 19 HCP West would jump to game. As I wrote in another post: I would seriously consider adjusting the score to 6H down 1 for both sides on the ground that West has shown a strong opening hand around 19 HCP. East needs a convincing explanation for not proceeding to slam. 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 Mar 30 09:17:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TMHW606666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:17:32 +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 g2TMHNH06652 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:17:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from 208-59-174-111.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.174.111] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16r4W9-00062X-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:06:41 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020329164645.00b76560@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:08:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) In-Reply-To: <001701c1d72a$ff715420$1433e150@dodona> References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020328114121.00a53ec0@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 09:05 AM 3/29/02, Grattan wrote: >NBOs free. I still believe I was right and that NBOs should be >treated as grown up, even though a few of them prove wayward, >and I refuse to accept suggestions that bodies as important as >the EBL and the ACBL should be put in strait jackets (which last >was Edgar's policy as expressed to me). Well, this is why we'll never get agreement on a preferred approach. Strait jackets are designed to restrain dangerous psychotics. But one size fits all -- the WBF can only either put strait jackets on all of their member NBOs or none of them. The real answer to, "Do the EBL and the ACBL need strait jackets?" seems to be "no and yes, respectively", but the WBF cannot do that. It should surprise no one, therefore, that when we ask, "Should the WBF put straight jackets on bodies like the EBL and the ACBL?", we get a firm "no" from EBL members (like Grattan) and an equally firm "yes" from ACBL members (like the late Mr. Kaplan, and myself). Even Edgar was human, and his theoretical views were undoubtedly colored by the fact that, after the WBFLC had finished its business and made its decisions, he had to come home to the U.S. and play bridge in ACBL-run competitions, a prospect which Grattan has never been forced to face. 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 Mar 30 10:22:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TNLpI13561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:21:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TNLbH13526 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:21:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2TNAto11232 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:10:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:52:29 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> Message-ID: <20020329181059-R01050000-52323B7F-4340-11D6-B93E-C32D725BB307-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/29/02 at 4:24 PM, hirsch9000@mindspring.com (Hirsch Davis) wrote: > You're still missing it. Why is W not allowed to know E has opening values? > The Law that would make this UI has been suspended in this situation. It > appears to be fully legal. ethical, and moral for W to possess and use this > information. E is not underbidding anything, if the original call is AI. > The 2H call may be the only way to get to the normal contract and actually > bring the hand back to equity...what's wrong with that? Precisely. 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 Mar 30 10:22:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TNLuo13568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:21:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TNLgH13547 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:21:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2TNAxo11290; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:10:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:58:15 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Re: Elderly people To: Israel Erdnbaum , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <007c01c1d769$35e013a0$5e4b003e@erdnbaum> Message-ID: <20020329181102-R01050000-53FBFF00-4340-11D6-B93E-C32D725BB307-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/29/02 at 11:31 PM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > Please remind me in what connection did I write it. I remember now it > was about LOOT when declarer leads knowingly from the wrong hand. > Well elderly people especially when novices love to play bridge Need > to play bridge but they play to enjoy themselves and stewing in their > juice is something they enjoy much less than other groups. *I* love to play bridge. I don't consider myself elderly, though I'll be 55 tomorrow. IMNSHO, anyone who does not play bridge for enjoyment ought to find another pastime. As to how much any given group enjoys or does not enjoy "stewing in their juice", the laws don't seem to care about that - so neither should the TD. 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 Mar 30 10:22:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TNLre13564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:21:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2TNLdH13531 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:21:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2TNAvo11250 for ; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:10:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 17:51:40 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <005f01c1d768$1c5e5780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020329181101-R01050000-5363687F-4340-11D6-B93E-C32D725BB307-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/29/02 at 10:24 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > What about law 16 (the header portion) for a starter? > Then you have Law 16A2 > And finally(?) you can make a jump to Law 73A1 > (There might be more) When I look at Law 16, I see that the headers of sub-parts A and B speak to "Extraneous Information", and seem to me to do so in such a way as to cover *all* extraneous information. Then I see that the header of sub-part C speaks to "Information from Withdrawn Calls or Plays". To me, all that says that information from withdrawn calls and plays is not "extraneous", and so neither 16A nor 16B apply. You might have better luck with 73A1, although I note that an insufficient bid is still a call, albeit perhaps not a legal one. 73A1 addresses calls, not just legal calls. 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 Mar 30 10:35:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TNZIY15088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:35:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2TNZ8H15067 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:35:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [80.225.87.240] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16r5et-0000Xd-00; Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:19:48 +0000 Message-ID: <002801c1d779$64a600e0$f057e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3CA4650C.9010203@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:12:33 -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: Friday, March 29, 2002 12:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > >> West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since > >> he gets a nice dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. > >> 4H+1, in fact, for an average: in fact the same result as > >> every other table. > >> +=+ I think the parenthetical reference to (b) in 27B1(a) is the key, and that the case in question provides an excellent example of the distinction to be made. It is AI that East has made a natural bid in Hearts; it should be judged UI that the bid is made on an opening hand.The Director should exercise his Law27B1(b) discretion. However, my thoughts do not end there. The Director may realise that whether the second 1H bid is a response to some opener, or something else, it is likely to be forcing at least one round. and certainly may be made on anything from six to at least twelve or thirteen points whatever it is. Does the player's possession of this knowledge take him beyond 27B1(a) or is it knowledge he may use - not by bidding 4H on a minimum, but by keeping the auction open at a minimal level? When the 4H bid is removed is the Director justified in substituting in his mind something other than Pass? Can this knowledge be said to damage opponents? Hmmm..... something to think about. ~ 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 Mar 30 10:36:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2TNaOY15217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:36:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2TNaDH15189 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:36:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 3350 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2002 23:25:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c1) (217.129.63.158) by front1.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 29 Mar 2002 23:25:29 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:25:36 -0000 Message-ID: <000201c1d779$084a8280$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2TNaHH15207 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Hirsch Davis Sent: sexta-feira, 29 de Março de 2002 21:25 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid E is not underbidding anything, if the original call is AI. The 2H call may be the only way to get to the normal contract and actually bring the hand back to equity...what's wrong with that? Regards, Hirsch ---------------------- Just one thing... Information from the 1H pass 1H auction is authorized BUT... information from the fact that 1H was intended as an opening bid, namely through reactions from the players, is not. If you play with screens and you see 1H pass 1H, it might go back or not, according to the specific regulations in each country, but what do you know (as opening bidder)? Prd wanted to raise to 2H? Or did he want to bid 1S? Or open 1H?... There is information that prd has bid 1H by mistake, but what type of mistake? The KNOWLEDGE of the reason for the 1H insufficient bid is unauthorized. Note that according to the initial description of the case there might have been a TD error and Probst is probably right that the TD would have to give the best of both worlds to both pairs... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 11:32:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2U0Vm221173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:31:48 +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 g2U0VaH21153 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:31:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.142.175] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16r6XX-000AGL-00; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:16:15 +0000 Message-ID: <008e01c1d781$47bce7c0$f057e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" Cc: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:18:11 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:31:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.64.142.175] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16r6XZ-000AGL-00; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:16:17 +0000 Message-ID: <008f01c1d781$48b8ace0$f057e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <5.1.0.14.1.20020328114121.00a53ec0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020329164645.00b76560@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 00:23:32 -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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) >, "Should the WBF put straight jackets on bodies like the EBL > and the ACBL?", we get a firm "no" from EBL members (like > Grattan) and an equally firm "yes" from ACBL members (like > the late Mr. Kaplan, and myself). > +=+ In fact, I believe you would find some cross-dressers each side of the Atlantic. +=+ > > Even Edgar was human, and his theoretical views were undoubtedly > colored by the fact that, after the WBFLC had finished its > business and made its decisions, he had to come home to the U.S. > and play bridge in ACBL-run competitions, a prospect which > Grattan has never been forced to face. > +=+ He repeatedly said to me "They would throw me out of the committee if I went home with something like that. (About various things I put to him.) And, as I have already tried to point out, it depends whom you ask: try asking the official representatives of these Zones in the council chamber of the WBF ! +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 17:43:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2U6e0F29529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:40:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2U6dpH29511 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:39:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.75.110]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTR00A2JWOELM@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:29:04 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:27:42 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Lane Joseph H. J9C642" Message-id: <004701c1d7b4$00421360$da5f003e@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: <86C9C6EDBC4ED511A2CD006008F6D8A8016AADB9@j9exch3.je.jfcom.mil> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The TD should have advised E. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lane Joseph H. J9C642" To: "'Israel Erdnbaum'" ; ; "Laurie Kelso" Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 7:33 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Interesting situation only because East is an idiot...he should have bid 4 > hearts. When he chose to bid only two, the TD should have advised W that he > must bid as if the auction had gone 1H-2H. > > West was unethical (apparently, we cannot see his hand) in that he used > unauthorized information to bid 4H. > > N-S were not damaged so are not entitled to an adjusted score. I believe a > committee would have assigned EW an adjusted score, however, for bidding > only 2H. > > Joe Lane > > > At 20:53 28/03/02 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > W N E S > > > 1H P 1H > > > > > > The TD is called. Both 1H openings are natural. If the TD needs to > > >know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and > > >opened. > > > > > > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the > > >bidding proceeds: > > > > > > W N E S > > > 1H P 1H > > > 2H P > > > 4H AP > > > > > > West's 4H is on a complete minimum, and makes, since he gets a nice > > >dummy [five card support and 13 points!!]. 4H+1, in fact, for an > > >average: in fact the same result as every other table. > > > > > > What action, if any, do you take as a TD? Do you adjust this result > > >in any way? > > > > > If you think it is obvious, please, just this once, answer the > > >question anyway. *I* thought it was obvious, and a friend of mine, a > > >very well-respected and senior TD thought it was obvious - but we do not > > >agree!!!!!! Both he, and another friend who asked the original > > >question, are members of BLML. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 17:48:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2U6jQw00108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:45:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2U6jHH00092 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:45:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0252.bb.online.no [80.212.208.252]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA18921 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:34:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000f01c1d7b4$f25dc040$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 07:34:29 +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: "Steve Willner" ..... > > Please consider law 27B1(b) and try to figure out what kind of information > > from an insufficient bid could cause damage to non-offending side. > > Easy: information that could not be expressed in the normal bidding > system. In this case, if the offenders have no way to bid a responding > hand with opening values and support for partner's suit, then L27B1b > would apply. Have you ever seen a bidding system with that defect? No. You had better come forward with a better 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 Sat Mar 30 20:08:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2U94sd14767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:04:54 +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 g2U94iH14748 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:04:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48720.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.80]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2U8rvM04489 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:53:57 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA57D58.3000502@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:54:48 +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] Insufficient bid References: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@erdnbaum> <001701c1d748$1508cd00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002a01c1d762$6ae2cd60$5e4b003e@erdnbaum> <005301c1d767$25640600$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > >>Hair splitting lawyer I am not ,somehow I thought you aren't >>either . >> > > I certainly hope not. When applying the laws I always try to know > the purpose (or intention) with the laws, and as far as Law 27 is > concerned I am convinced that the purpose of this law is to deny > offender's partner to participate further in the auction after an > insufficient bid because of the extraneous information he may > have received from the insufficient bid and the subsequent > correction. (You might compare the principles in laws 31 & 32). > > Law27B1 opens an exception to this principle: If the insufficient bid > is corrected within very narrow limits then the partner may still > participate in the auction. But then Law 27B1(b) plugs the loophole > that if eventually it should be revealed that partner from the insufficient > bid has had available to him information (not also conveyed by the > replacing bid) and this information has caused damage to opponents, > then the Director shall(!) assign an adjusted score. (Note the word > "shall", here it does not say "may"). > One correction. You write "(not also conveyed by the replacing bid)". Where do you read this ? L27B1b talks of information conveyed in the insufficient bid, it says nothing about this information also having to be in the correction. L27B1b talks of "damage to opponents". And this damage has to be caused by the original insufficient bid. As someone pointed out, damage is the difference between the table result and the expectation BEFORE the infraction. In this case, the infraction is the insufficient bid. Not the 4He from partner, since he is not constrained by L16. > -- 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 Mar 30 20:10:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2U97Ku15003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:07:20 +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 g2U97BH14990 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:07:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48720.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.80]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2U8uNM06901 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:56:23 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA57DEB.3050208@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 09:57:15 +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] Insufficient bid References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> <002901c1d726$48d2fb00$484c003e@erdnbaum> <000d01c1d747$a72a4660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: > > West would not (automatically) have to pass if East bid 2H. West can select > any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the > information that East has significantly more values than shown by his 2H > bid. That this in the actual case means West has to pass because he had > a minimum opening is a different story. > You are talking L16 terminology here, Sven. L16 does not apply. You are wrong when saying that east cannot select a call that ... You might be right in the end, but not by this road. > What the Director should clarify to East before East selects his corrected > call is that if he choses to bid 2H, West has a duty to carefully select his > subsequenct calls on the "knowledge" that East has cards for a normal > raise and nothing more. > > 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 Mar 30 20:25:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2U9N4o16756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:23:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2U9MtH16731 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:22:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0252.bb.online.no [80.212.208.252]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA04834 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:12:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <009301c1d7ca$f7c60540$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@erdnbaum> <001701c1d748$1508cd00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002a01c1d762$6ae2cd60$5e4b003e@erdnbaum> <005301c1d767$25640600$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA57D58.3000502@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:12:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" ...... > > Law27B1 opens an exception to this principle: If the insufficient bid > > is corrected within very narrow limits then the partner may still > > participate in the auction. But then Law 27B1(b) plugs the loophole > > that if eventually it should be revealed that partner from the insufficient > > bid has had available to him information (not also conveyed by the > > replacing bid) and this information has caused damage to opponents, > > then the Director shall(!) assign an adjusted score. (Note the word > > "shall", here it does not say "may"). > > > > > One correction. > You write "(not also conveyed by the replacing bid)". > Where do you read this ? An information conveyed by the insufficient bid, but also repeated by the replacing bid can hardly be damaging to opponents. > L27B1b talks of information conveyed in the insufficient bid, it says > nothing about this information also having to be in the correction. > L27B1b talks of "damage to opponents". And this damage has to be > caused by the original insufficient bid. > As someone pointed out, damage is the difference between the table > result and the expectation BEFORE the infraction. No, the damage is the difference between the table result and the expectation AFTER the infraction but BEFORE the correction of the insufficient bid. Note that law 27 gives no redress for damage to NOS if the offender selects to replace his insufficient bid by any call that forces partner to pass for the rest of the auction, even if his replacement happens to give OS an extremely lucky result. Adjustment under Law 27B1(b) applies in the single case when there is an unjustified good result to offending side after the insufficient bid was corrected under law 27B1(a). 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 Mar 30 20:42:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2U9e3718616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:40:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2U9dsH18602 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:39:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0252.bb.online.no [80.212.208.252]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA11423; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:29:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <009901c1d7cd$571a6660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> <002901c1d726$48d2fb00$484c003e@erdnbaum> <000d01c1d747$a72a4660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA57DEB.3050208@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 10:29:06 +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 From: "Herman De Wael" ..... > > West would not (automatically) have to pass if East bid 2H. West can select > > any call he wants EXCEPT that he cannot select a call based on the > > information that East has significantly more values than shown by his 2H > > bid. That this in the actual case means West has to pass because he had > > a minimum opening is a different story. > > > > > You are talking L16 terminology here, Sven. > L16 does not apply. L16C2 does not apply, but is replaced by L27B1(b) (The other parts of L16 are NOT exempted by L27B1(a) ). > You are wrong when saying that east cannot select a call that ... I should have written: "cannot select a call .... without possibly being ruled against under law 27B1(b) The equivalent law to the present law 27 originally stated that if the insufficient bid was replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination there was no penalty and the auction continued as if the infraction had never occurred. The additional (present) law 72B1(b) came because in many cases this permitted change in many cases resulted in a replacing bid with a completely different meaning than what the insufficient bid had conveyed. (I believe the first such "problem" was detected when an insufficient Vienna opening bid of 1C was replaced by a 2C overcall or raise as the case might be). The fundamental base for the law change was that the replacing bid must not only be the lowest bid with the same denomination, but also convey essentially the same information as the insufficient bid would have done had it been legal. 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 Mar 30 21:48:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UAkAc28326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:46:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout01.sul.t-online.com (mailout01.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UAk0H28314 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:46:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from fwd08.sul.t-online.de by mailout01.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16rFeq-00055G-07; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:00:24 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.225.61.50]) by fwd08.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16rFem-1l7wMiC; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:00:20 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:00:17 +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 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, an excerpt from "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge": (I know it`s written for 1987 rules, but Law 27B1(b) hasn`t changed) "However, the Director is required to consider wether the insufficient bid has conveyed information which is so substantial as to damage the non-offending side: if he judges this to be quite possibly the case, he assigns an adjusted score as provided in Law 27B1(b), and one case where this could arise is in circumstances where a meaning has been conveyed which the partnership had otherwise no means of, or no probable opportunity of, conveying." Which meaning, please, did they convey that they couldn`t without the insufficient bid? 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 Sat Mar 30 22:20:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UBJXE01913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:19:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail12.svr.pol.co.uk (mail12.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.215]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UBJDH01868 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:19:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by mail12.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rGil-0005NK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:08:31 +0000 Received: from modem-147.change-management-shark.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.10.147] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rGij-0004jD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:08:30 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08828; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:11:28 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 30 Mar 2002 11:08:22 +0000 In-Reply-To: "Sven Pran"'s message of "Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:54:33 +0100" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 46 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Sven Pran" writes: > From: "Steve Willner" > > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > Law 27B1(b) requests the Director to assign an adjusted score if he > > > finds that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage > > > the non-offending side. > > > > > > The non-offending side can be damaged this way if the insufficient bid > > > conveyed information very different from the information conveyed by > > > the replacing bid, and if such damaging information is used in such a > > > way by the offender's partner that the offending side receives a score > > > on the board better than they would have received without using this > > > information. > > > > This is not everyone's interpretation, but let that go for now. > > > > OK, say you assign an adjusted score under L27B1b and 12C2. What score > > shall it be? Please consider very carefully what the infraction is. > > There is no "infraction" causing the use of L27B1b, the infraction > is properly handled by L27B1a. But there is an "irregularity" > following from this: > > The irregularity for the purpose of assigning an adjusted score > under law 27B1(b) is NOT the insufficient bid itself, but the > impossibility to correct this bid under Law 27B1(a) without giving > (to offender's partner) extraneous information and the fact that > this information have damaged opponents the way the auction > continued. (No West in the world would have bid game with a minimum > opening hand knowing that partner just had for a raise to 2H). Note that, when defining "damage", the WBF Code of Practice uses (twice) the word "infraction", and not the word "irregularity": "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 22:20:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UBJV001911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:19:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UBJCH01865 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:19:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rGij-0007tO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:08:29 +0000 Received: from modem-147.change-management-shark.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.10.147] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rGic-0004io-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:08:28 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08826; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:11:28 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 30 Mar 2002 10:11:59 +0000 In-Reply-To: "Sven Pran"'s message of "Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:07:08 +0100" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 47 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Sven Pran" writes: > From: "Rui Marques" > > -- > > Furthermore, how does West know that East has significantly more values? > > Ahhhhhhhh..... The TD told it at the table?... > > No, according to the original description it was evident to everybody at the > table that East had overlooked the opening bid by West and made his own > opening bid of 1H. The original description doesn't say this, actually. > David wrote that if asked, East would confirm this. But > my experience as TD tells me that TD doesn't need to ask such questions > directly, he will know by the attitude of the players when he arrives at the > table. David wrote: "If the TD needs to know, and asks, East will say he did not realise West had dealt and opened." I don't think the TD does need to know, and so he shouldn't ask. So as far as the original description tells us, we have no reason to think that there was any UI from the manner of the second 1H bid or from the answers to any questions. I'm not just nit-picking. David asked a hypothetical question that, I think, raises an interesting question about the interpretation of L27B1(b). I've given my opinion about it, and I'd like to understand the position of those who disagree, without the added complications of additional UI, TD error, etc. which were not a part of the original question. [Incidentally, the hypothetical TD who dealt with this hypothetical case has had much opprobrium heaped upon him for no very good reason. As far as I can tell from David's description, he behaved impeccably. If I were a hypothetical TD and were subjected to such abuse, I think I'd give up ruling these hypothetical cases. :)] Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 22:20:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UBJVl01908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:19:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UBJCH01866 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:19:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rGij-0007tN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:08:29 +0000 Received: from modem-147.change-management-shark.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.10.147] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rGih-0004ip-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:08:28 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08827; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:11:28 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 30 Mar 2002 11:04:31 +0000 In-Reply-To: "Sven Pran"'s message of "Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:44:04 +0100" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 61 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Sven Pran" writes: > From: "Hirsch Davis" > > > You're still missing it. Why is W not allowed to know E has opening > values? > > The Law that would make this UI has been suspended in this situation. It > > appears to be fully legal. ethical, and moral for W to possess and use > this > > information. E is not underbidding anything, if the original call is AI. > > The 2H call may be the only way to get to the normal contract and actually > > bring the hand back to equity...what's wrong with that? > > Please consider law 27B1(b) and try to figure out what kind of information > from an insufficient bid could cause damage to non-offending side. > > If you find none, then ask yourself what is the purpose of this law. Well, the knowledge that E has opening values could, in other circumstances. I think both Steve Willner and I have mentioned the possibility of an auction that uses the extra space given by the 1H/2H bid to get to a slam that wouldn't be reached without the insufficient bid. Or how about 1S (4H) 1S/4S (P) 6S where the opening bidder would pass over 1S (4H) 4S (P) ? because his partner might be stretching to bid game. > (However, the question whether such information has caused damage to > NOS is a separate issue which the Director is required to > investigate). Yes. I think Steve Willner's posts have identified the key problem here -- what does "damage" mean in this situation. I'm with Steve. The NOS are damaged if they do worse than they would have done without the insufficient bid. The Laws themselves are not very clear about this, but I've just looked at the WBF Code of Practice: "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." That removes all doubts that I had. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Mar 30 23:37:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UCYti11078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:34:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UCYiH11065 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:34:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3424.bb.online.no [80.212.221.96]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA07235; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:23:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001d01c1d7e5$c3ec2400$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Matthias Berghaus" Cc: References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:23:57 +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: "Matthias Berghaus" > an excerpt from "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge": > (I know it`s written for 1987 rules, but Law 27B1(b) hasn`t changed) Law 27 was indeed changed from 1987 to 1997: In L27B1(a) as of 1987 the replacement bid did not have to be "not conventional", and there was no excluding reference to L16C2. In L27B1(b) as of 1987 the condition for adjustment was that the insufficient bid "conveyed such substantial information as to damage", the word "substantial" was removed in the 1997 laws. > > "However, the Director is required to consider wether the insufficient > bid has conveyed information which is so substantial as to damage the > non-offending side: if he judges this to be quite possibly the case, he > assigns an adjusted score as provided in Law 27B1(b), and one case where > this could arise is in circumstances where a meaning has been conveyed > which the partnership had otherwise no means of, or no probable > opportunity of, conveying." ".... and one case" - he didn't write "the one case" Did you overlook comments 27.6 giving other examples of the insufficient bid being likely to cause damage, in particular when the insufficient bid apparently was meant as an opening bid while the replacement bid is not? > > Which meaning, please, did they convey that they couldn`t without the > insufficient bid? The commentary specifically points out cases where there is a significant difference between the replacement bid and the insufficient bid. (Like a simple raise instead of an opening) 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 Mar 30 23:55:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UCrmE13177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:53:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UCrdH13161 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:53:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48720.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.80]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2UCgsx28350 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:42:54 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA5B301.7090205@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:43:45 +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] Insufficient bid References: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@erdnbaum> <001701c1d748$1508cd00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002a01c1d762$6ae2cd60$5e4b003e@erdnbaum> <005301c1d767$25640600$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA57D58.3000502@village.uunet.be> <009301c1d7ca$f7c60540$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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" > ...... > >>>Law27B1 opens an exception to this principle: If the insufficient bid >>>is corrected within very narrow limits then the partner may still >>>participate in the auction. But then Law 27B1(b) plugs the loophole >>>that if eventually it should be revealed that partner from the >>> > insufficient > >>>bid has had available to him information (not also conveyed by the >>>replacing bid) and this information has caused damage to opponents, >>>then the Director shall(!) assign an adjusted score. (Note the word >>>"shall", here it does not say "may"). >>> >>> >> >>One correction. >>You write "(not also conveyed by the replacing bid)". >>Where do you read this ? >> > > An information conveyed by the insufficient bid, but also repeated > by the replacing bid can hardly be damaging to opponents. > That's true, but it's a double negative. It does not follow from this that info not conveyed by the replacing bid is disallowed. > >>L27B1b talks of information conveyed in the insufficient bid, it says >>nothing about this information also having to be in the correction. >>L27B1b talks of "damage to opponents". And this damage has to be >>caused by the original insufficient bid. >>As someone pointed out, damage is the difference between the table >>result and the expectation BEFORE the infraction. >> > > No, the damage is the difference between the table result and the > expectation AFTER the infraction but BEFORE the correction of the > insufficient bid. > No, that is NOT the definition of damage. This is pure "code of practice" stuff. Damage is the difference between the situation before the infraction and the table result. Besides, how can you calculate the expectation BEFORE the correction, if you don't even know what the correction is going to be ? And certainly how are you going to calculate the expectation, if you need for that to inform players of the consequences of the different possible corrections, if that consequence depends on the amount of damage, which you believe to be dependent on the correction? Sorry, that does not make sense, but neither does your definition of damage. > Note that law 27 gives no redress for damage to NOS if the offender > selects to replace his insufficient bid by any call that forces partner > to pass for the rest of the auction, even if his replacement happens > to give OS an extremely lucky result. > Of course not, that's common practice - unless L23 applies of course (forcing partner to pass). > Adjustment under Law 27B1(b) applies in the single case when there > is an unjustified good result to offending side after the insufficient bid > was corrected under law 27B1(a). > Indeed, and if the insufficient bid gave away more information. Again Sven, I am not yet certain that mine is the correct approach. I'm merely trying to point out the fallacies in your reasoning, so that we might reach some conclusion. > 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 Mar 30 23:55:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UCsR313253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:54:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UCsHH13238 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:54:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3424.bb.online.no [80.212.221.96]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA15565; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:43:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "Jeremy Rickard" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:43:30 +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: "Jeremy Rickard" ....... > Note that, when defining "damage", the WBF Code of Practice uses > (twice) the word "infraction", and not the word "irregularity": > > "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent > side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the > expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." Accepted that the damage may be the final outcome of the initial infraction, but that infraction is completely dealt with under law 27. The "damage" to be corrected under Law27B1(b) is the consequence of Law 27B1(a) not fulfilling its purpose, that is when the correction allowed by L27B1(a) is leading to an unjustified good result for the offending side. Unjustified because offender's partner knows the information conveyed by the insufficient bid, information which he could not in the situation get to know in any regular way and still be allowed to continue participating in that auction (Law27B2). According to how I understand your argument I would expect you to rule an adjustment also in the following case: 1S - 1S* insufficient and corrected to 4S after which all pass. Say that the combined forces of the two hands dictates an undisturbed auction ending in 3S making 4. Because of the infraction the offender selected to gamble for game. Your "damage" to NOS is the difference between the table score and the expectation just before the infraction, but that expectation cannot possibly be anything else than 3S making 4? However, any adjustment in this case is completely out of order. 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 Mar 31 00:00:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UCxIW13787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:59:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UCx9H13770 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:59:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48720.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.80]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2UCmOx03676 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:48:24 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA5B44A.6050401@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:49:14 +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] Insufficient bid References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> <002901c1d726$48d2fb00$484c003e@erdnbaum> <000d01c1d747$a72a4660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA57DEB.3050208@village.uunet.be> <009901c1d7cd$571a6660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: > > The fundamental base for the law change was that the replacing bid > must not only be the lowest bid with the same denomination, but also > convey essentially the same information as the insufficient bid would > have done had it been legal. > > Sven > Exactly, but the key word is "essentially". Not "absolutely", because that can never be the case. And since that means that there is always "extra" information, which should of course be UI, the lawmakers saw fit to de-stablish L16 and replace it with something that was termed "cause damage". So far we agree. Now to the point as to what constitutes "essentially" the same information and what is too much. As has been said in this thread (and we would need to see the cards to see if it is true - let us assume that it is), the pair should not fail to reach 4He in any case. So where's the damage? (official definition of damage please!) > > -- 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 Mar 31 00:32:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UDUbn17211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:30:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UDURH17194 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:30:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA12685; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:19:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002b01c1d7ed$8bc74d40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@erdnbaum> <001701c1d748$1508cd00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002a01c1d762$6ae2cd60$5e4b003e@erdnbaum> <005301c1d767$25640600$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA57D58.3000502@village.uunet.be> <009301c1d7ca$f7c60540$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5B301.7090205@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:19:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" ...... > > An information conveyed by the insufficient bid, but also repeated > > by the replacing bid can hardly be damaging to opponents. > > > > > That's true, but it's a double negative. It does not follow from this > that info not conveyed by the replacing bid is disallowed. Of course not, but it also follows that such information "may" be damaging. > > > > > >>L27B1b talks of information conveyed in the insufficient bid, it says > >>nothing about this information also having to be in the correction. > >>L27B1b talks of "damage to opponents". And this damage has to be > >>caused by the original insufficient bid. > >>As someone pointed out, damage is the difference between the table > >>result and the expectation BEFORE the infraction. > >> > > > > No, the damage is the difference between the table result and the > > expectation AFTER the infraction but BEFORE the correction of the > > insufficient bid. > > > > > No, that is NOT the definition of damage. > This is pure "code of practice" stuff. > Damage is the difference between the situation before the infraction > and the table result. > > Besides, how can you calculate the expectation BEFORE the correction, > if you don't even know what the correction is going to be ? I don't think you always can, and you don't have to: Law 27B1(b) is only applicable if the correction is such as to permit offender's partner to continue participating in the auction. And damage under this law is only possible if the information in the insufficient bid was not essentially repeated with the correction (as I believe we agreed upon above). When calculating possible damage the Director has to evaluate what result could likely be expected on the table, with the penalty caused by the infraction in force but with offender's partner being barred from the information solely conveyed by the insufficient bid and not by the replacement bid. .....(snip a bit) > Again Sven, I am not yet certain that mine is the correct approach. > I'm merely trying to point out the fallacies in your reasoning, so > that we might reach some conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that the only reasonable way to reach an understanding of law27B1(b) is to figure out exactly what kind of damaging information will cause this law to be applicable. My view (I do not claim it is the only correct view!) is that Law27B1(b) may be applicable whenever the replacement bid, although complying with L27B1(a), does not (aproximately) replicate _all_ the information conveyed by the insufficient bid. I challenge whoever to come forward with a different view. But please spare me any more arguments like "this is not applicable". Show me something realistic 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 Sun Mar 31 00:36:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UDZuR17790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:35:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UDZmH17775 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:35:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48720.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.80]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2UDP0x09139 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:25:00 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:25:50 +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] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: "Jeremy Rickard" > ....... > >>Note that, when defining "damage", the WBF Code of Practice uses >>(twice) the word "infraction", and not the word "irregularity": >> >>"Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent >>side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the >>expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." >> > > Accepted that the damage may be the final outcome of the initial > infraction, but that infraction is completely dealt with under law 27. > > The "damage" to be corrected under Law27B1(b) is the consequence > of Law 27B1(a) not fulfilling its purpose, that is when the correction > allowed by L27B1(a) is leading to an unjustified good result for the > offending side. Unjustified because offender's partner knows the > information conveyed by the insufficient bid, information which he > could not in the situation get to know in any regular way and still > be allowed to continue participating in that auction (Law27B2). > You are judging the allowance according to L16 again. L27B1a allows partner to continue to participate in the auction, even allowing information that would be considered UI (and I do grant you that the info in this case is greater than sometimes). by removing L16 from the picture, L27B1a allows partner to know that the replaced bid is just that - a replacement, not necessarily consistent with the system. This has now become AI, and partner can use it. There is just one exception to that, and this is covered in L27B1b. If the information is such that it causes damage, then it is no longer allowed. Now I grant you that the UI in this case is huge, but it still is changed into AI. And the only thing we need to discuss is whether or not the infraction caused damage. Did the insufficient bid cause EW to reach a contract they would not otherwise have been able to reach? Apparently not. So no damage - no application of L27B1b. > According to how I understand your argument I would expect you > to rule an adjustment also in the following case: > > 1S - 1S* insufficient and corrected to 4S after which all pass. > > Say that the combined forces of the two hands dictates an > undisturbed auction ending in 3S making 4. Because of the > infraction the offender selected to gamble for game. > > Your "damage" to NOS is the difference between the table score > and the expectation just before the infraction, but that expectation > cannot possibly be anything else than 3S making 4? > > However, any adjustment in this case is completely out of order. Indeed, because the damage (and yes, there is damage in that case if not in the original) was not _caused_ by the infraction. > > 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 Sun Mar 31 00:50:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UDmOB19114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:48:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UDmEH19098 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:48:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA24248 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:37:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003101c1d7f0$072877a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> <002901c1d726$48d2fb00$484c003e@erdnbaum> <000d01c1d747$a72a4660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA57DEB.3050208@village.uunet.be> <009901c1d7cd$571a6660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5B44A.6050401@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:37:25 +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" > So far we agree. > Now to the point as to what constitutes "essentially" the same > information and what is too much. > As has been said in this thread (and we would need to see the cards to > see if it is true - let us assume that it is), the pair should not > fail to reach 4He in any case. So where's the damage? (official > definition of damage please!) Consider a slightly different case: Every table in the room lands in a contract of game, which as the cards lie is one down, nothing anybody can do about that. Due to insufficient bid etc. etc. an offending pair somehow stops short of game and make their contract. There is no doubt that the only reason they did not reach game was a result of the insufficient bid and a bad (or unlucky) choice by the offender when selecting how to correct this infraction, for instance by bidding the final contract. Has the infraction damaged NOS so that they are entitled to redress? I certainly hope you agree with me in a big NO! NOS has been damaged, no doubt about that. The damage is a result of the infraction, no doubt about that either. But the infraction was corrected according to Law27, Law 27B1(b) was not applicable, and the direct cause of the damage was not the infraction but how the cards happened to lie. Similarly: IMO Law27B1(b) enters the picture, not because of damage from the original infraction, but because Law 27B1(a) lets the offender's partner participate in the auction having information he should not be allowed to have. 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 Mar 31 01:02:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UE0kL20515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:00:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UE0bH20498 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 01:00:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA27365 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:49:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:49:50 +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 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" ..... > > According to how I understand your argument I would expect you > > to rule an adjustment also in the following case: > > > > 1S - 1S* insufficient and corrected to 4S after which all pass. > > > > Say that the combined forces of the two hands dictates an > > undisturbed auction ending in 3S making 4. Because of the > > infraction the offender selected to gamble for game. > > > > Your "damage" to NOS is the difference between the table score > > and the expectation just before the infraction, but that expectation > > cannot possibly be anything else than 3S making 4? > > > > However, any adjustment in this case is completely out of order. > > > Indeed, because the damage (and yes, there is damage in that case if > not in the original) was not _caused_ by the infraction. How can you say that and still be consistent? If there had not been any infraction they would have landed in the same 3S contract as everybody else? The infraction is the only real reason they reached game. 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 Mar 31 02:38:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UFbOk20983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:37:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UFbFH20979 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:37:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.104]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00A75LJZSN@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:26:25 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:24:40 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Matthias Berghaus Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@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: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Do you know any other way to convey by bidding 2H that you have 5+H and 11+ HCP ? If you do please let us know . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 12:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Hi all, > > an excerpt from "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge": > (I know it`s written for 1987 rules, but Law 27B1(b) hasn`t changed) > > "However, the Director is required to consider wether the insufficient > bid has conveyed information which is so substantial as to damage the > non-offending side: if he judges this to be quite possibly the case, he > assigns an adjusted score as provided in Law 27B1(b), and one case where > this could arise is in circumstances where a meaning has been conveyed > which the partnership had otherwise no means of, or no probable > opportunity of, conveying." > > Which meaning, please, did they convey that they couldn`t without the > insufficient bid? > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 02:08:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UG8Bl21005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:08:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UG83H21001 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:08:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48720.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.80]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2UFvGx03566 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:57:16 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA5E08D.1070509@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:58:05 +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] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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" > ..... > >>>According to how I understand your argument I would expect you >>>to rule an adjustment also in the following case: >>> >>>1S - 1S* insufficient and corrected to 4S after which all pass. >>> >>>Say that the combined forces of the two hands dictates an >>>undisturbed auction ending in 3S making 4. Because of the >>>infraction the offender selected to gamble for game. >>> >>>Your "damage" to NOS is the difference between the table score >>>and the expectation just before the infraction, but that expectation >>>cannot possibly be anything else than 3S making 4? >>> >>>However, any adjustment in this case is completely out of order. >>> >> >>Indeed, because the damage (and yes, there is damage in that case if >>not in the original) was not _caused_ by the infraction. >> > > How can you say that and still be consistent? If there had not been any > infraction they would have landed in the same 3S contract as everybody > else? > > The infraction is the only real reason they reached game. > Common fallacy, Sven, It's not because something would not have been there without something else, that the second caused the first. Ask Ton to explain to you about Wellington and Waterloo. > 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 Sun Mar 31 02:54:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UGsEj22344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:54:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UGs1H22314 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:54:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rLwk-0004Kk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:43:18 +0000 Received: from modem-125.gold-spangled.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.18.125] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rLwh-0007F6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:43:18 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09527; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:46:27 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 30 Mar 2002 16:38:13 +0000 In-Reply-To: "Sven Pran"'s message of "Sat, 30 Mar 2002 13:43:30 +0100" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 61 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Sven Pran" writes: > From: "Jeremy Rickard" > ....... > > Note that, when defining "damage", the WBF Code of Practice uses > > (twice) the word "infraction", and not the word "irregularity": > > > > "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent > > side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the > > expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." > > Accepted that the damage may be the final outcome of the initial > infraction, but that infraction is completely dealt with under law 27. > > The "damage" to be corrected under Law27B1(b) is the consequence > of Law 27B1(a) not fulfilling its purpose, that is when the correction > allowed by L27B1(a) is leading to an unjustified good result for the > offending side. Unjustified because offender's partner knows the > information conveyed by the insufficient bid, information which he > could not in the situation get to know in any regular way and still > be allowed to continue participating in that auction (Law27B2). > > According to how I understand your argument I would expect you > to rule an adjustment also in the following case: > > 1S - 1S* insufficient and corrected to 4S after which all pass. > > Say that the combined forces of the two hands dictates an > undisturbed auction ending in 3S making 4. Because of the > infraction the offender selected to gamble for game. > > Your "damage" to NOS is the difference between the table score > and the expectation just before the infraction, but that expectation > cannot possibly be anything else than 3S making 4? Yes, but ... The parenthetical remark in L27B1(a) says the withdrawn bid is not UI. L27B1(b) says: "If the Director judges that *the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side*, he shall assign an adjusted score." [my emphasis] In your 1S-1S example, it is not the *information conveyed by the insufficient bid* that damages the NOS, so no adjustment. As I read the law, responder is allowed to correct his bid to 2S, after which opener is free to use the information that responder (probably) has an opening 1S bid, except that if, using that information, they obtain a result better than they would have without the insufficient bid, then a score adjustment is in order. Jeremy. -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 02:54:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UGsHN22349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:54:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UGs4H22321 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 02:54:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [195.92.67.23] (helo=mail18.svr.pol.co.uk) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rLwo-0004L9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:43:22 +0000 Received: from modem-125.gold-spangled.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.18.125] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rLwm-0007FF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:43:21 +0000 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA09528; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 16:46:27 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 30 Mar 2002 16:41:26 +0000 In-Reply-To: Israel Erdnbaum's message of "Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:24:40 +0200" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 44 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum writes: > Do you know any other way to convey by bidding 2H that you have 5+H and > 11+ HCP ? If you do please let us know . We were not told the precise hands, but we were told that all other pairs reached 4H, so presumably there was a wat to convey (not by bidding 2H, of course) that the partnership held the values and heart suit to play in 4H. Why is it relevant that this was done *by bidding 2H* ? Jeremy. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 12:00 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > Hi all, > > > > an excerpt from "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge": > > (I know it`s written for 1987 rules, but Law 27B1(b) hasn`t changed) > > > > "However, the Director is required to consider wether the insufficient > > bid has conveyed information which is so substantial as to damage the > > non-offending side: if he judges this to be quite possibly the case, he > > assigns an adjusted score as provided in Law 27B1(b), and one case where > > this could arise is in circumstances where a meaning has been conveyed > > which the partnership had otherwise no means of, or no probable > > opportunity of, conveying." > > > > Which meaning, please, did they convey that they couldn`t without the > > insufficient bid? > > > > Best regards > > Matthias -- Jeremy Rickard Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 03:01:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UH1bM22417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:01:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UH1RH22413 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:01:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA28585 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:50:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <006201c1d80b$05b0d780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5E08D.1070509@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 17:50:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > > The infraction is the only real reason they reached game. > > > > > Common fallacy, Sven, > > It's not because something would not have been there without something > else, that the second caused the first. Huh? (What is your "second", and what is your "first"?) > Ask Ton to explain to you about Wellington and Waterloo. I believe I know at least some of my share on European history, thank you. However, I am still hoping someone will take my challenge and show their view with realistic examples on what kind of information will trigger the use of L27B1(b). If they do, maybe we could reach a consensus on the application of L27B1(b). (The only suggestion I have noticed so far is if a system have no way of showing good heart support and 13+ HCP after partner opened the auction with a 1H bid. I have never heard of any system lacking such a possibility and do not consider this a realistic 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 Sun Mar 31 03:12:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UHBsI22462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:11:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UHBjH22458 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:11:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2UH11o13072; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:01:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 11:41:22 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <009901c1d7cd$571a6660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020330120102-R01050000-CE2A92FF-43D5-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/30/02 at 10:29 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > The fundamental base for the law change was that the replacing bid > must not only be the lowest bid with the same denomination, but also > convey essentially the same information as the insufficient bid would > have done had it been legal. Really? How do you know 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 Sun Mar 31 03:34:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UHXgd22488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:33:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UHXYH22484 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:33:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA22757; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:22:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <007001c1d80f$814b7680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020330120102-R01050000-CE2A92FF-43D5-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:22:44 +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 From: "Ed Reppert" ..... > > The fundamental base for the law change was that the replacing bid > > must not only be the lowest bid with the same denomination, but also > > convey essentially the same information as the insufficient bid would > > have done had it been legal. > > Really? How do you know that? Education my friend, education. I was taught the bridge laws back in 1980, and have had follow up courses with every law change thereafter. (It is of course possible that my teachers - the Norwegian Law Committee - was wrong, but I tend to trust them because we were also told the logic behind the laws, why the different laws are what they are, and so on). 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 Mar 31 03:44:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UHibe22508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:44:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout05.sul.t-online.com (mailout05.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UHiTH22504 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:44:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout05.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16rMZC-0001Ji-02; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:23:02 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.82.219.15]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16rMYy-1avTsWC; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:22:48 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA5F467.C540FB67@t-online.de> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:22:47 +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: Israel Erdnbaum CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum schrieb: > > Do you know any other way to convey by bidding 2H that you have 5+H and > 11+ HCP ? If you do please let us know . Don`t you think they would have managed in a "pure" auction? Without the insufficient bid they would have played 4H. Now they played 4H. Big advantage! If they had taken advantage of the extra bidding space we could adjust, but what advantage did they gain? They didn`t reach a superior contract or something like this. 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 Sun Mar 31 03:47:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UHlJH22523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:47:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout11.sul.t-online.com (mailout11.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UHlAH22519 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:47:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout11.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16rMVf-0000wP-08; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:19:23 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.82.219.15]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16rMVc-0wGRUmC; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:19:20 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA5F396.F552CA2D@t-online.de> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:19:18 +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: Sven Pran CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran schrieb: > > > The infraction is the only real reason they reached game. > > Sven > The fact that two people with opening bid strength happen to be partners doesn`t possibly come into the picture? Law 27 tells us this is not a Law 16 case. The only Law under which we can possibly change the result is 27B1b, and this is intended for cases where the OS exchange information they couldn`t exchange otherwise. Surely they can get to 4H somehow, can`t they? If by keeping the bidding low they manage to exchange information they ordinarily wouldn`t we can adjust the score, but surely this isn`t the case here. If we adjust in this case, what is this law for? Or, in other words: Is there any case where the offender bids on the minimum level - enabling his partner to participate in the auction - except the trivial ones where he always wanted to bid on this minimum level (making the bid more or less inadvertant), without the TD adjusting the score? If the answer is no there is absolutely no sense left in 27B1b. Law 27 would tell us not to use Law 16, but since information not connected to the actual bid makes you want to use it in the disguise of 27B1b we would have a law negating it`s own effect. 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 Sun Mar 31 03:55:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UHt7N22539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:55:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UHsxH22535 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 03:55:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from user-vcaui4a.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.72.138] helo=davishi) by hall.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16rMti-0002Zz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:44:14 -0500 Message-ID: <006201c1d812$5ca961e0$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <001d01c1d7e5$c3ec2400$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:43:11 -0500 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: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 4:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > The fundamental base for the law change was that the replacing bid > must not only be the lowest bid with the same denomination, but also > convey essentially the same information as the insufficient bid would > have done had it been legal. > > Sven > The OS is playing without a bidding system. Any bid beside the sufficient replacement will force partner to pass for one round. None of these bids have the same meaning that they had prior to the infraction. The only remaining call is 2H...the only bid that will allow partner to call on the next round. The simple fact that this is the only call that can allow partner to bid forces a different meaning on the call than the insufficient call would have had if legal. How can a bid have the same meaning as the insufficient bid would have when legal, when it is being played without the rest of the bidding system? Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 04:01:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UI1Hu22561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:01:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UI18H22557 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:01:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA29353; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:50:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00ae01c1d813$5c26a7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Matthias Berghaus" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5F396.F552CA2D@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:50:20 +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 From: "Matthias Berghaus" > The fact that two people with opening bid strength happen to be partners > doesn`t possibly come into the picture? > > Law 27 tells us this is not a Law 16 case. The only Law under which we > can possibly change the result is 27B1b, and this is intended for cases > where the OS exchange information they couldn`t exchange otherwise. > Surely they can get to 4H somehow, can`t they? > > If by keeping the bidding low they manage to exchange information they > ordinarily wouldn`t we can adjust the score, but surely this isn`t the > case here. > > If we adjust in this case, what is this law for? Or, in other words: Is > there any case where the offender bids on the minimum level - enabling > his partner to participate in the auction - except the trivial ones > where he always wanted to bid on this minimum level (making the bid more > or less inadvertant), without the TD adjusting the score? If the answer > is no there is absolutely no sense left in 27B1b. Law 27 would tell us > not to use Law 16, but since information not connected to the actual bid > makes you want to use it in the disguise of 27B1b we would have a law > negating it`s own effect. The "penalty" with Law 27B2 is that partner must pass for the remainder of the auction. The "penalty" with Law 27B1(a) is that the partnership is deprived a major part of their agreements for the remainder of the auction, and "damage" to opponents is established if they can "cancel" this effect through using the information conveyed by the insufficient bid. If the director judges that this is the case he shall use law 27B1(b) and assign an adjusted score. In order for you to fully understand Law 27B1(b) I challenge you to come forward with realistic examples on what kind of information is relevant for the application of this 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 Sun Mar 31 04:09:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UI9l222577 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:09:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UI9dH22573 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:09:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2UHwuo20322 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:58:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 12:41:46 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/30/02 at 6:22 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > Education my friend, education. > > I was taught the bridge laws back in 1980, and have had follow up courses > with every law change thereafter. > > (It is of course possible that my teachers - the Norwegian Law Committee - > was wrong, but I tend to trust them because we were also told the logic > behind the laws, why the different laws are what they are, and so on). I don't know whether they're right or wrong in this case, but I'd be leery of accepting their word for it without corroboration - preferably from someone who was involved in the construction of the law. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 04:13:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UIDPC22596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:13:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UIDGH22592 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:13:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA04900 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:02:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00d001c1d815$0df72ca0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <001d01c1d7e5$c3ec2400$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d812$5ca961e0$0a01a8c0@davishi> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:02:28 +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: "Hirsch Davis" > > The fundamental base for the law change was that the replacing bid > > must not only be the lowest bid with the same denomination, but also > > convey essentially the same information as the insufficient bid would > > have done had it been legal. > > > > Sven > > > > The OS is playing without a bidding system. Any bid beside the sufficient > replacement will force partner to pass for one round. What ??? Please read Law 27B2 before you claim something like that: The offender's partner must pass _whenever_ it is his turn to call. > None of these bids > have the same meaning that they had prior to the infraction. The only > remaining call is 2H...the only bid that will allow partner to call on the > next round. The simple fact that this is the only call that can allow > partner to bid forces a different meaning on the call than the insufficient > call would have had if legal. That is simply not true. Except of course that 2H (in this case) is the only replacement which will allow partner to call anything else than pass thereafter. (You ought to remember that pass is also a call, so partner may always call when it is his turn) > > How can a bid have the same meaning as the insufficient bid would have when > legal, when it is being played without the rest of the bidding system? That is exactly the problem for OS after an insufficient bid corrected under Law 27B1. They are deprived a (possibly) major part of their bidding system. 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 Mar 31 04:38:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UIc3p22613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:38:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.libertysurf.net (mail.libertysurf.net [213.36.80.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UIbtH22609 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:37:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from lanfeust (212.129.47.91) by mail.libertysurf.net (5.1.053) id 3C965BC200292B9D for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:27:07 +0100 Message-ID: <15ac01c1d818$8144d0b0$0201a8c0@lanfeust> From: "Jean-Jacques Lafay" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5E08D.1070509@village.uunet.be> <006201c1d80b$05b0d780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:27:08 +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 Sven wrote : > However, I am still hoping someone will take my challenge and show their > view with realistic examples on what kind of information will trigger the > use > of L27B1(b). If they do, maybe we could reach a consensus on the > application of L27B1(b). Well, let's keep the auction that initiated the thread : x KJxxx KQx AJ9x opposite Axxx A10xxx x Q10x the auction goes (opponents silent) 1H 1H corrected to 2H 3C 3S 3NT 4C BW or anything else leading to 6H 6H is good, making if trumps are 2-1 and either minor honor is onside, and with still some chances if you find who has HQ 3rd. (Real) oppener knows the 1H bid is AI, describes his hand, learn of some C support, and reaches slam. Meanwhile responder 1H is a normal 3rd hand opening, and he also knows (because TD explained it correctly) that he can correct it to 2H with 1H still AI. The trouble is that absent the infraction, responder would have splintered 4D, and with that much wasted values in D, and no "last train" slam try available, opener would surely sign-off in 4H. And here you are, TD uses 27B1b to adjust to 4H making 6. > (The only suggestion I have noticed so far is if a system have no way of > showing good heart support and 13+ HCP after partner opened the auction > with a 1H bid. I have never heard of any system lacking such a possibility > and do not consider this a realistic example) This is precisely the point : since there is no system lacking this possibility, neither is there a possibility of invoking 27B1b to adjust 4H making 5 to 2H making 5 when two 1H opening face each other. Score stands. I must admit that this thread frightens me quite a bit : I'm not a TD, and when reading the initial message, my first reaction was just the same as Steve's, ie "blatant use of UI, apply 16C2 and hang him", then I read TFLB and discovered that the original 1H is AI, since 16C2 is explicitly dismissed. But if the TD called is not fully aware of this (which seems quite possible as there is still some arguing on BLML !), I might be convinced that the best I can do is bid 4H and hope partner doesn't have enough for slam, whereas my best option is by far to bid 2H, thereby reaching any "normal" contract I would have reached without my lapse of concentration. So the bottom line is that what I shall do (except trying to avoid IB ;-) depends more on the TD (and the way I think he understands L27) than on the law itself, not such a good thing... And one more thing : I really wouldn't mind should the Laws say that the IB is UI, it would make L27 harsher, but not more than many other !! Jean-Jacques. -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 04:39:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UId6F22625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:39:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UIcuH22621 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:38:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.74.116]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00B0ZTYPFU@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:28:05 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:26:13 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: majordomo@inka.de, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Jeremy Rickard Cc: ayala hiler , Mark Horton , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am bringing good news.An addition to our poor vocabulary. Playing 5 card majors-- 1M -- 2M; 3+M and 6 -10 HCP . 1H - P - 1H TD!!! corrected to 2H 5+H 11+ HCP As you see ,you convinced me. So thanks to our Law makers ,and all the commentators ,who so convincingly e xplain their intentions. I eagerly await now the many suggestions how to use the new avenues opened. Thanks Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Rickard" To: Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > "Sven Pran" writes: > > > From: "Hirsch Davis" > > > > > You're still missing it. Why is W not allowed to know E has opening > > values? > > > The Law that would make this UI has been suspended in this situation. It > > > appears to be fully legal. ethical, and moral for W to possess and use > > this > > > information. E is not underbidding anything, if the original call is AI. > > > The 2H call may be the only way to get to the normal contract and actually > > > bring the hand back to equity...what's wrong with that? > > > > Please consider law 27B1(b) and try to figure out what kind of information > > from an insufficient bid could cause damage to non-offending side. > > > > If you find none, then ask yourself what is the purpose of this law. > > Well, the knowledge that E has opening values could, in other > circumstances. > > I think both Steve Willner and I have mentioned the possibility of an > auction that uses the extra space given by the 1H/2H bid to get to a > slam that wouldn't be reached without the insufficient bid. > > Or how about > > 1S (4H) 1S/4S (P) > 6S > > where the opening bidder would pass over > > 1S (4H) 4S (P) > ? > > because his partner might be stretching to bid game. > > > (However, the question whether such information has caused damage to > > NOS is a separate issue which the Director is required to > > investigate). > > Yes. I think Steve Willner's posts have identified the key problem > here -- what does "damage" mean in this situation. > > I'm with Steve. The NOS are damaged if they do worse than they would > have done without the insufficient bid. The Laws themselves are not > very clear about this, but I've just looked at the WBF Code of > Practice: > > "Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side > obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the > expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." > > That removes all doubts that I had. > > Jeremy. > > -- > Jeremy Rickard > Email: j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk > WWW: http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~pure/staff/majcr/ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 31 04:41:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UIfnJ22644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:41:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UIfeH22640 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:41:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA12385 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:30:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:30:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" ..... > > Education my friend, education. > > > > I was taught the bridge laws back in 1980, and have had follow up courses > > with every law change thereafter. > > > > (It is of course possible that my teachers - the Norwegian Law Committee - > > was wrong, but I tend to trust them because we were also told the logic > > behind the laws, why the different laws are what they are, and so on). > > I don't know whether they're right or wrong in this case, but I'd be leery of > accepting their word for it without corroboration - preferably from someone who > was involved in the construction of the law. Our major corroboration was that 1: The whole thing made sense 2: The laws appeared to be consistet 3: We found the same interpretation in for instance the Danish commented laws which were issued in 1981, not to mention Grattans commentary to the 1987 laws. I would like to quote from the Danish commented laws written by Bent Keith Hansen who was also co-writer together with Grattan Endicott for the Commentary on the 1987 laws: Comment to Law 27B1(b) (quote, in my own translation) This is particularly relevant in the cases where the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid with the same denomination has a conventional meaning different from that of the other bid, or where the interpretation of the two bids are significantly different. (end quote). Note, The laws in 1981 had no prerequisite for correction under law 27B1 that both bids must be non-conventional, therefore the comments include reference to conventional bids with different meaning as well as non-conventional bids with significantly different interpretations. An insufficient bid showing opening strength being replaced by a sufficient bid showing nothing more than a simple raise were examples of bids with significantly different interpretations for the application of law 27B1(b) while an insufficient bid of 2H showing a simple raise over partners opening bid at 1H being replaced by a sufficient bid of 3H showing a similar support after opponents intervention in 2S were deemed not to be significantly different. Again I challenge anybody to come forward with their view on what kind of information from the insufficient bid should trigger the application of Law 27B1(b) Sven I do feel on solid ground. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 04:55:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UItRe22660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:55:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UItHH22656 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:55:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA19055; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:44:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00f101c1d81a$eacf7ba0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:44:26 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > I am bringing good news.An addition to our poor vocabulary. > Playing 5 card majors-- 1M -- 2M; 3+M and 6 -10 HCP . > 1H - P - 1H TD!!! corrected to 2H > 5+H 11+ HCP > As you see ,you convinced me. So thanks to our Law makers ,and all the > commentators ,who so convincingly e > xplain their intentions. > I eagerly await now the many suggestions how to use the new avenues opened. > Thanks > Israel Erdenbaum Reminding me - very far besides the point - of a story that happened in Norway when we introduced the Stop and Alert cards: The initial rule was to Stop before any skip bid, but also before weak opening bids in 1NT (below 15 HCP). The result? One club found a very nice extention to their bidding system: Stop - 1NT showed 12-14 HCP 1NT (without Stop) showed 15-17 HCP And as the Secretary General of the Norwegian NBO told me when he mentioned why the Stop rule was altered on that point: "It was completely impossible to make them understand this was not in agreement with the laws and 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 Sun Mar 31 04:59:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UIxBk22675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:59:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UIx2H22671 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 04:59:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.74.116]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00BDGUW9FR@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:48:11 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:46:52 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Matthias Berghaus Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <01e601c1d81b$43206e40$684f003e@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: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA5F467.C540FB67@t-online.de> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If you *steal something ,you could* have received by asking it still is *stealing. Please read my latest post. Will you at least admit that if this bracketed addition to the Laws allows what you all suggest ,than it s.. . Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Cc: Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > Israel Erdnbaum schrieb: > > > > Do you know any other way to convey by bidding 2H that you have 5+H and > > 11+ HCP ? If you do please let us know . > > Don`t you think they would have managed in a "pure" auction? Without the > insufficient bid they would have played 4H. Now they played 4H. Big > advantage! > > If they had taken advantage of the extra bidding space we could adjust, > but what advantage did they gain? They didn`t reach a superior contract > or something like this. > > 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 Sun Mar 31 05:05:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJ58t22698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:05:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UJ50H22694 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:05:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48720.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.80]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2UIsFD17398 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:54:15 +0100 (MET) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA60A09.4090800@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:55:05 +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] Insufficient bid References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: > > > Again I challenge anybody to come forward with their view on what kind of > information from the insufficient bid should trigger the application of Law > 27B1(b) > well, the example that ended up in 6He was a good one. Or : 1Sp (4He) 1Sp/4Sp (pass) going on - seeing partner has opening values, not just support. > Sven > > > > I do feel on solid ground. > so do I.. > 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 Sun Mar 31 05:06:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJ5uI22710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:05:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UJ5lH22706 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:05:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA02439; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:54:58 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00fb01c1d81c$63a92d40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Jean-Jacques Lafay" , "Bridge Laws" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5E08D.1070509@village.uunet.be> <006201c1d80b$05b0d780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <15ac01c1d818$8144d0b0$0201a8c0@lanfeust> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:54:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Jean-Jacques Lafay" > Sven wrote : > > However, I am still hoping someone will take my challenge and show their > > view with realistic examples on what kind of information will trigger the > > use > > of L27B1(b). If they do, maybe we could reach a consensus on the > > application of L27B1(b). > > Well, let's keep the auction that initiated the thread : > > x > KJxxx > KQx > AJ9x > > opposite > > Axxx > A10xxx > x > Q10x > > the auction goes (opponents silent) > > 1H 1H corrected to 2H > 3C 3S > 3NT 4C > BW or anything else leading to 6H > > 6H is good, making if trumps are 2-1 and either minor honor is onside, > and with still some chances if you find who has HQ 3rd. > > (Real) oppener knows the 1H bid is AI, describes his hand, learn of some C > support, and reaches slam. Meanwhile responder 1H is a normal 3rd hand > opening, and he also knows (because TD explained it correctly) that he can > correct it to 2H with 1H still AI. The trouble is that absent the > infraction, > responder would have splintered 4D, and with that much wasted values > in D, and no "last train" slam try available, opener would surely sign-off > in 4H. > > And here you are, TD uses 27B1b to adjust to 4H making 6. I agree, not as a contradiction but as a support to my view. Personally I frown on splintering with South's hand above (I want at least 13HCP), but I frown even more on North considering his diamonds wasted against a singleton in South. There is at least one, possibly two favourable discards on his honours, why not cue-bid once to see if South goes on? They can always land in 5H. So I cannot unconditionally agree that they will bid the slam if and only if they include an insufficient bid in the sequence. 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 Mar 31 05:06:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJ6W122725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:06:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2UJ6MH22721 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:06:22 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29276 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2002 18:55:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c1) (217.129.63.158) by front1.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 30 Mar 2002 18:55:31 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 18:55:39 -0000 Message-ID: <000501c1d81c$7c4a1bc0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2UJ6PH22722 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Rui Marques [mailto:rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt] Sent: sábado, 30 de Março de 2002 18:55 To: 'Sven Pran' Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: sábado, 30 de Março de 2002 18:31 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid ... An insufficient bid showing opening strength being replaced by a sufficient bid showing nothing more than a simple raise were examples of bids with significantly different interpretations for the application of law 27B1(b) while an insufficient bid of 2H showing a simple raise over partners opening bid at 1H being replaced by a sufficient bid of 3H showing a similar support after opponents intervention in 2S were deemed not to be significantly different. Again I challenge anybody to come forward with their view on what kind of information from the insufficient bid should trigger the application of Law 27B1(b) Sven -------------------------------- I think that you start on the wrong foot, sorry, when you say "An insufficient bid showing opening strength..." The insuficient bid in itself shows a number of possible different things. Partner is not entitled to the reason why the bid was insufficient. The insufficient bid is insufficient and that´s it. "Showing opening strength" is THE trigger for Law 27B1b. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 05:07:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJ79W22737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:07:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UJ70H22733 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:07:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.3]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00BK0V9JD7@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:56:09 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:54:20 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Hirsch Davis Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <01fd01c1d81c$5fe34ba0$684f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <001d01c1d7e5$c3ec2400$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006201c1d812$5ca961e0$0a01a8c0@davishi> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Have not you heard that you pay for inattention.? Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "Herman De Wael" ; "Bridge Laws" > > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 4:29 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > > > The fundamental base for the law change was that the replacing bid > > must not only be the lowest bid with the same denomination, but also > > convey essentially the same information as the insufficient bid would > > have done had it been legal. > > > > Sven > > > > The OS is playing without a bidding system. Any bid beside the sufficient > replacement will force partner to pass for one round. None of these bids > have the same meaning that they had prior to the infraction. The only > remaining call is 2H...the only bid that will allow partner to call on the > next round. The simple fact that this is the only call that can allow > partner to bid forces a different meaning on the call than the insufficient > call would have had if legal. > > How can a bid have the same meaning as the insufficient bid would have when > legal, when it is being played without the rest of the bidding system? > > Hirsch > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 31 05:21:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJLHG23473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:21:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UJL7H23456 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:21:08 +1000 (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 OAA03263 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:10:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA24264 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:10:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:10:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200203301910.OAA24264@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > You had better come forward with a better example. OK, see below. > No, the damage is the difference between the table result and the > expectation AFTER the infraction but BEFORE the correction of the > insufficient bid. As already pointed out, the Code of Practice (and common sense) says otherwise. Please remember there is no UI (in the postulated case). The _only_ irregularity is the insufficient bid itself. Even if you assign an adjusted score, you will be looking for probable/at all likely results _before_ the IB is made. > Note that law 27 gives no redress for damage to NOS if the offender > selects to replace his insufficient bid by any call that forces partner > to pass for the rest of the auction, even if his replacement happens > to give OS an extremely lucky result. > > Adjustment under Law 27B1(b) applies in the single case when there > is an unjustified good result to offending side after the insufficient bid > was corrected under law 27B1(a). Sorry, not correct. Remember, the headers are not part of the laws. Usually that is unimportant, but it matters a great deal for L27. > Law 27 was indeed changed from 1987 to 1997: > > In L27B1(a) as of 1987 the replacement bid did not have to be > "not conventional", and there was no excluding reference to L16C2. Remember, prior to 1997, L16C2 explicitly said the withdrawn IB was AI. The effect is the same now, but the exclusion of 16C2 had to be added because of the change in 16C2. OK, here's my example. RHO opens 1C; offender bids an insufficient 1C and corrects to 2C. Without the IB, 2C would have been two-suited. Of course partner is barred (27B2), but suppose 2C turns out to be a great result. I don't know about you, but I adjust the score under 27B1b. (I could also use 72B1 but could not have done so prior to 1997; before then, 27B1b would have been the only option.) Also, notice what the adjustment is: it is the likely/at all probable result after the opening 1C but before the IB, given that no natural 2C bid is available. I think this refutes both of Sven's points. It shows a case where we would apply 27B1b, and the case is not after 27B1a. Sven: I really think you need to reread the FLB. Remember, my original opinion was identical to yours. I was certain of what the outcome "ought to be" until I had a very careful look at what the Laws actually say. Then I changed my mind. Grattan: looks like another one for your notebook! This would be a good place to avoid mixing mechanical and UI penalties, IMHO. I'm not sure how to do it, but _either_ the withdrawn bid is UI, no further penalty, _or_ have a mechanical penalty, but everything is AI. Would it work to give the NOS the choice of which penalty to impose? It would also be really nice to eliminate the need to determine whether bids are conventional or not. David S. had a nice idea about that. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 05:26:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJQ1Z23983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:26:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (smtp10.atl.mindspring.net [207.69.200.246]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UJPrH23970 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:25:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from user-vcaui4a.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.72.138] helo=davishi) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16rOJe-00086k-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:15:07 -0500 Message-ID: <01a301c1d81f$0ccf9100$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:13:55 -0500 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: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: ; ; "Jeremy Rickard" Cc: "ayala hiler" ; "Mark Horton" ; "Israel Erdenbaum" Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > I am bringing good news.An addition to our poor vocabulary. > Playing 5 card majors-- 1M -- 2M; 3+M and 6 -10 HCP . > 1H - P - 1H TD!!! corrected to 2H > 5+H 11+ HCP > As you see ,you convinced me. So thanks to our Law makers ,and all the > commentators ,who so convincingly e > xplain their intentions. > I eagerly await now the many suggestions how to use the new avenues opened. > Thanks > Israel Erdenbaum Use 72B2 to close them. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 05:27:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJRBL24124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:27:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UJR1H24090 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:27:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.3]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00B5HW6WKJ@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:16:10 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:14:52 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <022601c1d81f$2c007da0$684f003e@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: <001101c1d716$02dd6280$2c4e003e@erdnbaum> <001701c1d748$1508cd00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002a01c1d762$6ae2cd60$5e4b003e@erdnbaum> <005301c1d767$25640600$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You are right but in the first place I used the UI because I've seen it so often used, and thought it would be easier understood ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > Hair splitting lawyer I am not ,somehow I thought you aren't > > either . > > I certainly hope not. When applying the laws I always try to know > the purpose (or intention) with the laws, and as far as Law 27 is > concerned I am convinced that the purpose of this law is to deny > offender's partner to participate further in the auction after an > insufficient bid because of the extraneous information he may > have received from the insufficient bid and the subsequent > correction. (You might compare the principles in laws 31 & 32). > > Law27B1 opens an exception to this principle: If the insufficient bid > is corrected within very narrow limits then the partner may still > participate in the auction. But then Law 27B1(b) plugs the loophole > that if eventually it should be revealed that partner from the insufficient > bid has had available to him information (not also conveyed by the > replacing bid) and this information has caused damage to opponents, > then the Director shall(!) assign an adjusted score. (Note the word > "shall", here it does not say "may"). > > Bid goes 1H - 2H [6-10 ;3+H] but he knows that partner has 12+ > > and 5+ H .I am not a lawyer not a Director but I am a referee and in my > Club > > he'd never score MORE than 2 +3. > > I sure hope I"ll find justification in the > > *good* book. > > Will you help looking for it. > > IMO you have all the justification you need in Law 27B1(b) > > (And drop the futile search for UI - that is not the important point) > > 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 Sun Mar 31 05:27:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJRgJ24184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:27:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UJPFH23887 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:25:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.3]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00D24W3DZQ@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:14:04 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:12:41 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Jean-Jacques Lafay Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <021401c1d81e$de71c120$684f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5E08D.1070509@village.uunet.be> <006201c1d80b$05b0d780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <15ac01c1d818$8144d0b0$0201a8c0@lanfeust> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 'The best I can do is to bid 4H" Do you deserve any better? Not paying attention is and probably should be penalised. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Jacques Lafay" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Sven wrote : > > However, I am still hoping someone will take my challenge and show their > > view with realistic examples on what kind of information will trigger the > > use > > of L27B1(b). If they do, maybe we could reach a consensus on the > > application of L27B1(b). > > Well, let's keep the auction that initiated the thread : > > x > KJxxx > KQx > AJ9x > > opposite > > Axxx > A10xxx > x > Q10x > > the auction goes (opponents silent) > > 1H 1H corrected to 2H > 3C 3S > 3NT 4C > BW or anything else leading to 6H > > 6H is good, making if trumps are 2-1 and either minor honor is onside, > and with still some chances if you find who has HQ 3rd. > > (Real) oppener knows the 1H bid is AI, describes his hand, learn of some C > support, and reaches slam. Meanwhile responder 1H is a normal 3rd hand > opening, and he also knows (because TD explained it correctly) that he can > correct it to 2H with 1H still AI. The trouble is that absent the > infraction, > responder would have splintered 4D, and with that much wasted values > in D, and no "last train" slam try available, opener would surely sign-off > in 4H. > > And here you are, TD uses 27B1b to adjust to 4H making 6. > > > (The only suggestion I have noticed so far is if a system have no way of > > showing good heart support and 13+ HCP after partner opened the auction > > with a 1H bid. I have never heard of any system lacking such a possibility > > and do not consider this a realistic example) > > This is precisely the point : since there is no system lacking this > possibility, > neither is there a possibility of invoking 27B1b to adjust 4H making 5 to > 2H making 5 when two 1H opening face each other. Score stands. > > I must admit that this thread frightens me quite a bit : > I'm not a TD, and when reading the initial message, my first reaction was > just the same as Steve's, ie "blatant use of UI, apply 16C2 and hang him", > then I read TFLB and discovered that the original 1H is AI, since 16C2 > is explicitly dismissed. > > But if the TD called is not fully aware of this (which seems quite possible > as there is still some arguing on BLML !), I might be convinced that the > best I can do is bid 4H and hope partner doesn't have enough for slam, > whereas my best option is by far to bid 2H, thereby reaching any "normal" > contract I would have reached without my lapse of concentration. > > So the bottom line is that what I shall do (except trying to avoid IB ;-) > depends more on the TD (and the way I think he understands L27) than > on the law itself, not such a good thing... > > And one more thing : I really wouldn't mind should the Laws say that the > IB is UI, it would make L27 harsher, but not more than many other !! > > Jean-Jacques. > -- > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 31 05:28:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJRr124199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:27:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UJRbH24177 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:27:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.3]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00E2QW5V17@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:15:33 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:14:11 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <021d01c1d81f$144c1200$684f003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If you are satisfied that something in brackets of Law 27 can make the 2H AI[as well as the "constrained to bid" part] you are welcome. In my book day is day and no Law can make it night. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > From: "Sven Pran" > > Law 27B1(b) requests the Director to assign an adjusted score if he > > finds that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage > > the non-offending side. > > > > The non-offending side can be damaged this way if the insufficient bid > > conveyed information very different from the information conveyed by > > the replacing bid, and if such damaging information is used in such a > > way by the offender's partner that the offending side receives a score > > on the board better than they would have received without using this > > information. > > This is not everyone's interpretation, but let that go for now. > > OK, say you assign an adjusted score under L27B1b and 12C2. What score > shall it be? Please consider very carefully what the infraction is. > (Hint: the withdrawn bid is AI because L16C2 does not apply. Also, the > operation of law -- in this case, that responder was constrained to bid > 2H or else bar opener -- is also AI.) > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 31 05:28:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJS7r24226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:28:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UJRhH24190 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:27:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.3]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00E2KW820F@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:16:52 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:15:30 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Elderly people To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <023001c1d81f$42e9f820$684f003e@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: <20020329181102-R01050000-53FBFF00-4340-11D6-B93E-C32D725BB307-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I Don't care what the Laws care about I care about people Ed. Before being TD one should be humane. "Stewing people" is not my sense of humour. BTW I am a young 81. All the best Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 12:58 AM Subject: [BLML] Re: Elderly people > On 3/29/02 at 11:31 PM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > > > Please remind me in what connection did I write it. I remember now it > > was about LOOT when declarer leads knowingly from the wrong hand. > > Well elderly people especially when novices love to play bridge Need > > to play bridge but they play to enjoy themselves and stewing in their > > juice is something they enjoy much less than other groups. > > *I* love to play bridge. I don't consider myself elderly, though I'll be 55 > tomorrow. IMNSHO, anyone who does not play bridge for enjoyment ought to find > another pastime. As to how much any given group enjoys or does not enjoy > "stewing in their juice", the laws don't seem to care about that - so neither > should the TD. > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 05:29:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJSoY24309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:28:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front2.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2UJSVH24278 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:28:32 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 14616 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2002 19:17:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c1) (217.129.63.158) by front2.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 30 Mar 2002 19:17:36 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:17:52 -0000 Message-ID: <000601c1d81f$969de300$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000501c1d81c$7c4a1bc0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2UJSaH24285 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Rui Marques Sent: sábado, 30 de Março de 2002 18:56 To: 'Bridge Laws' Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid (...............) The insufficient bid is insufficient and that´s it. "Showing opening strength" is THE trigger for Law 27B1b. I will correct myself: "Showing opening strength" does not trigger 27B1b, but it is UI. And I agree that it is difficult to come up with examples of application of 27B1b... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 05:29:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJSpH24311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:28:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UJS8H24231 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:28:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.3]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00E22W8Q1T@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:17:16 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:15:54 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <023601c1d81f$51739680$684f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "There is NO WAY I shall EVER accept the 4H bid" Bravo !!! Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Steve Willner" ; Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > From: "Steve Willner" > > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > Law 27B1(b) requests the Director to assign an adjusted score if he > > > finds that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage > > > the non-offending side. > > > > > > The non-offending side can be damaged this way if the insufficient bid > > > conveyed information very different from the information conveyed by > > > the replacing bid, and if such damaging information is used in such a > > > way by the offender's partner that the offending side receives a score > > > on the board better than they would have received without using this > > > information. > > > > This is not everyone's interpretation, but let that go for now. > > > > OK, say you assign an adjusted score under L27B1b and 12C2. What score > > shall it be? Please consider very carefully what the infraction is. > > There is no "infraction" causing the use of L27B1b, the infraction is > properly > handled by L27B1a. But there is an "irregularity" following from this: > > The irregularity for the purpose of assigning an adjusted score under law > 27B1(b) > is NOT the insufficient bid itself, but the impossibility to correct this > bid under > Law 27B1(a) without giving (to offender's partner) extraneous information > and the > fact that this information have damaged opponents the way the auction > continued. > (No West in the world would have bid game with a minimum opening hand > knowing > that partner just had for a raise to 2H). > > East in our case has the impossible choice between plague and cholera: He > can > correct his bid to 2H, grossly underbidding his values but leaving partner > free > to bid on, only partner then is not allowed to "know" that East has opening > values. > Or he can bid anything else directly and thereby exclude partner from any > further > participation in the auction. But how does he know whether they shall be in > 4H > or 6H, there is nothing to tell East that partner does not have a 19HCP > opening? > > Actually, IMO the sequence 1H - 2H - 4H indicates that the opening hand is > around 19HCP (assuming that 2H shows 6-9), and with 13+ HCP East has no > excuse for letting the auction die at game. > > I might even consider an adjustment to 6H down one as the "correct" result > on > this board, but there is no way I shall ever accept 4H as the contract when > the > case is as described by David in his original post. > > (Note that if West had had a 19HCP opening hand I would have accepted an > auction: > 1H - 1H* corrected to 2H > 4H - 6H AP, slam made with 12 or 13 tricks. > > And it would not make any difference if East after the 4H bid took command > with Blackwood or something before landing in 6H) > > 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 Sun Mar 31 05:30:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJUMh24491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:30:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UJUBH24472 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:30:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.3]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00D1WWC1XB@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:19:15 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 21:17:54 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <024401c1d81f$98a7bcc0$684f003e@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: <20020329164358-R01050000-2A3CDB00-4334-11D6-B93E-C32D725BB307-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A TD should not accuse anybody of being unethical.To accuse anybody of being unethical ,you should be able to prove that he/she was aware that the action was unethical. best regards Israel Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 11:19 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 3/29/02 at 12:33 PM, lanej@je.jfcom.mil (Lane Joseph H. J9C642) wrote: > > > West was unethical (apparently, we cannot see his hand) in that he used > > unauthorized information to bid 4H. > > I think that's a bit much, given that (IMO, at least, and some others apparently > agree), the TD failed to fully explain the ramifications of the Law to West. I > can envision a TD telling west "if east corrects to 2H, you can bid anything you > want". For a TD to do that, and then adjust the score and accuse west of being > unethical, well, no comment. > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 05:33:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJXN324831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:33:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UJXDH24816 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:33:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA12700 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:22:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <011201c1d820$39b4fc40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws'" References: <000501c1d81c$7c4a1bc0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:22:25 +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 > ... An insufficient bid showing opening strength being replaced by a > sufficient bid showing nothing more than a simple raise were examples of > bids with significantly different interpretations for the application of > law 27B1(b) while an insufficient bid of 2H showing a simple raise over > partners opening bid at 1H being replaced by a sufficient bid of 3H > showing a similar support after opponents intervention in 2S were deemed > not to be significantly different. > > I think that you start on the wrong foot, sorry, when you say "An > insufficient bid showing opening strength..." The insuficient bid in > itself shows a number of possible different things. Partner is not > entitled to the reason why the bid was insufficient. The insufficient > bid is insufficient and that´s it. "Showing opening strength" is THE > trigger for Law 27B1b. These were not my comments, it was from the examples given in Bent Keith Hansen's commented bridge-laws (in danish) 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 Mar 31 05:53:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UJrXc27017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:53:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.libertysurf.net (mail.libertysurf.net [213.36.80.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UJrNH27005 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 05:53:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from lanfeust (212.129.47.91) by mail.libertysurf.net (5.1.070) id 3C7EF02B005FC658 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:42:35 +0100 Message-ID: <16a301c1d823$0bdd1de0$0201a8c0@lanfeust> From: "Jean-Jacques Lafay" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5E08D.1070509@village.uunet.be> <006201c1d80b$05b0d780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <15ac01c1d818$8144d0b0$0201a8c0@lanfeust> <00fb01c1d81c$63a92d40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 20:42:37 +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: "Sven Pran" > From: "Jean-Jacques Lafay" > > > Sven wrote : > > > However, I am still hoping someone will take my challenge and show their > > > view with realistic examples on what kind of information will trigger > the > > > use > > > of L27B1(b). If they do, maybe we could reach a consensus on the > > > application of L27B1(b). > > > > Well, let's keep the auction that initiated the thread : > > > > x > > KJxxx > > KQx > > AJ9x > > > > opposite > > > > Axxx > > A10xxx > > x > > Q10x > > > > the auction goes (opponents silent) > > > > 1H 1H corrected to 2H > > 3C 3S > > 3NT 4C > > BW or anything else leading to 6H > > > > 6H is good, making if trumps are 2-1 and either minor honor is onside, > > and with still some chances if you find who has HQ 3rd. > > > > (Real) oppener knows the 1H bid is AI, describes his hand, learn of some C > > support, and reaches slam. Meanwhile responder 1H is a normal 3rd hand > > opening, and he also knows (because TD explained it correctly) that he can > > correct it to 2H with 1H still AI. The trouble is that absent the > > infraction, > > responder would have splintered 4D, and with that much wasted values > > in D, and no "last train" slam try available, opener would surely sign-off > > in 4H. > > > > And here you are, TD uses 27B1b to adjust to 4H making 6. > > I agree, not as a contradiction but as a support to my view. > > Personally I frown on splintering with South's hand above (I want > at least 13HCP), but I frown even more on North considering his > diamonds wasted against a singleton in South. There is at least > one, possibly two favourable discards on his honours, why not > cue-bid once to see if South goes on? They can always land in 5H. > > So I cannot unconditionally agree that they will bid the slam if > and only if they include an insufficient bid in the sequence. Of course everything depends on the system. In mine, there is just no other possibility than 4D, which has quite a narrow range, and cannot be significantly stronger, but could be slightly weaker, making any further bid risky, with very slender prospects of slam, and a real possibility of going down in 5 opposite something along (not too weak for me !) KJxx AQxxx x xxx Of course you can switch the black suits if you think either hand should bid 1S over 1H. And anyway I don't think we should have the burden of *proving* that the one and only way to reach 6H within the pair's methods is through and IB, it seems enough that it should be "unlikely" (or maybe "very unlikely") for them to reach it, and it is up to them to exhibit a convincing sequence, this is the part "[TD] *judges* that the insufficient bid...". And if you prefer stronger hands for splinters, you could easily work it the other way round : if you think that the opening hand is worth a cue-bid (5C I guess) over 4D, then you will surely reach 6H down one opposite KQx AQxxx x KQxx (remove a queen if you think it is too strong), while a 1H changed to 2H will leave you enough room to BW and see that there are two aces missing, so once again : 4 or 5H making 5 adjusted to 6H down one under 27B1b (I aggree that this analysis, while probably theorically correct, would be hard to carry out in real life, since it relies heavily on the details of the OS system). I also saw another example in this very thread : 1S 4H 1S changed to 4S where opener could bid on to slam much more easily than over a simple 4S, that doesn't show opening values or 5 spades, and especially so if his spades are not so good. Jean-Jacques. -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 06:08:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UK89s28570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:08:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UK81H28555 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:08:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2UJvBM19414; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:57:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:41:19 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Israel Erdnbaum , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <021401c1d81e$de71c120$684f003e@erdnbaum> Message-ID: <20020330145709-R01050000-6896D080-43EE-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/30/02 at 9:12 PM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > 'The best I can do is to bid 4H" Do you deserve any better? Not paying > attention is and probably should be penalised. Penalized how? "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: 1. paying insufficient attention to the game." -- Law 74B1 "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 Laws. It seems to me that there is little question of "punishment" here. There may be some "redress for damage", but in order to get there, you have to show (a) an infraction of law and (b) damage caused thereby. I don't think that's been done 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 Sun Mar 31 06:27:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UKR4n00627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:27:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UKQsH00607 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:26:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.80.6]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTS00B59YYOSU@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:16:03 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:14:12 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Message-id: <002b01c1d827$88c7bc80$0650003e@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=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203301910.OAA24264@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk YOU can't penalise a person twice,maybe you can give a split score .I'm talking about the 2C bid. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 9:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > From: "Sven Pran" > > You had better come forward with a better example. > > OK, see below. > > > No, the damage is the difference between the table result and the > > expectation AFTER the infraction but BEFORE the correction of the > > insufficient bid. > > As already pointed out, the Code of Practice (and common sense) says > otherwise. > > Please remember there is no UI (in the postulated case). The _only_ > irregularity is the insufficient bid itself. Even if you assign an > adjusted score, you will be looking for probable/at all likely results > _before_ the IB is made. > > > Note that law 27 gives no redress for damage to NOS if the offender > > selects to replace his insufficient bid by any call that forces partner > > to pass for the rest of the auction, even if his replacement happens > > to give OS an extremely lucky result. > > > > Adjustment under Law 27B1(b) applies in the single case when there > > is an unjustified good result to offending side after the insufficient bid > > was corrected under law 27B1(a). > > Sorry, not correct. Remember, the headers are not part of the laws. > Usually that is unimportant, but it matters a great deal for L27. > > > Law 27 was indeed changed from 1987 to 1997: > > > > In L27B1(a) as of 1987 the replacement bid did not have to be > > "not conventional", and there was no excluding reference to L16C2. > > Remember, prior to 1997, L16C2 explicitly said the withdrawn IB was AI. > The effect is the same now, but the exclusion of 16C2 had to be added > because of the change in 16C2. > > OK, here's my example. RHO opens 1C; offender bids an insufficient 1C > and corrects to 2C. Without the IB, 2C would have been two-suited. > > Of course partner is barred (27B2), but suppose 2C turns out to be a > great result. I don't know about you, but I adjust the score under > 27B1b. (I could also use 72B1 but could not have done so prior to > 1997; before then, 27B1b would have been the only option.) Also, > notice what the adjustment is: it is the likely/at all probable result > after the opening 1C but before the IB, given that no natural 2C bid is > available. > > I think this refutes both of Sven's points. It shows a case where we > would apply 27B1b, and the case is not after 27B1a. > > Sven: I really think you need to reread the FLB. Remember, my original > opinion was identical to yours. I was certain of what the outcome > "ought to be" until I had a very careful look at what the Laws actually > say. Then I changed my mind. > > Grattan: looks like another one for your notebook! This would be a good > place to avoid mixing mechanical and UI penalties, IMHO. I'm not sure > how to do it, but _either_ the withdrawn bid is UI, no further penalty, > _or_ have a mechanical penalty, but everything is AI. Would it work to > give the NOS the choice of which penalty to impose? It would also be > really nice to eliminate the need to determine whether bids are > conventional or not. David S. had a nice idea about that. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 06:49:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UKnbi03084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:49:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UKnSH03068 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:49:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.80.6]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTT00E4B00E60@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:38:40 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:37:18 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Hirsch Davis Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <006a01c1d82a$b03b8000$0650003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <01a301c1d81f$0ccf9100$0a01a8c0@davishi> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk How do you prove determination,employ recorders, and all that in order to maintain a l... Law which makes an evident UI into AI. --Regards Israel--- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 9:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: ; ; "Jeremy Rickard" > > Cc: "ayala hiler" ; "Mark Horton" > ; "Israel Erdenbaum" > > Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 1:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > I am bringing good news.An addition to our poor vocabulary. > > Playing 5 card majors-- 1M -- 2M; 3+M and 6 -10 HCP . > > 1H - P - 1H TD!!! corrected to 2H > > 5+H 11+ HCP > > As you see ,you convinced me. So thanks to our Law makers ,and all the > > commentators ,who so convincingly e > > xplain their intentions. > > I eagerly await now the many suggestions how to use the new avenues > opened. > > Thanks > > Israel Erdenbaum > > Use 72B2 to close them. > > Hirsch > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Mar 31 07:23:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2ULNWa06858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 07:23:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2ULNNH06844 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 07:23:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.236]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTT00BL31KTWQ@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:12:31 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:10:42 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001e01c1d82f$6cfbfa40$ec4e003e@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: <20020330145709-R01050000-6896D080-43EE-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am sorry if you misunderstood ,I don't ask for any further penalty.It's mr.Lafay who is complaining that if UI were adopted he would have had to bid 4H and this would have been his 'penalty' in fact far from being penalised he was actually rewarded*[not by chance but by the *Law makers] for making an insufficient bid . Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 9:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 3/30/02 at 9:12 PM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > > > 'The best I can do is to bid 4H" Do you deserve any better? Not paying > > attention is and probably should be penalised. > > Penalized how? "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." > > "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: > > 1. paying insufficient attention to the game." -- Law 74B1 > > "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 Laws. > > It seems to me that there is little question of "punishment" here. There may be > some "redress for damage", but in order to get there, you have to show (a) an > infraction of law and (b) damage caused thereby. I don't think that's been done > 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 Sun Mar 31 08:56:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UMrGf17198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:53:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UMr6H17180 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:53:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA19228 for ; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:42:17 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <012601c1d83c$254375e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203301910.OAA24264@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:42:17 +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: "Steve Willner" ..... > > No, the damage is the difference between the table result and the > > expectation AFTER the infraction but BEFORE the correction of the > > insufficient bid. > > As already pointed out, the Code of Practice (and common sense) says > otherwise. We have a difference of opinions here, and I have the impression (as I have demonstrated in an earlier post) that your view may lead to absurdity in some cases. > > Please remember there is no UI (in the postulated case). The _only_ > irregularity is the insufficient bid itself. Even if you assign an > adjusted score, you will be looking for probable/at all likely results > _before_ the IB is made. Again we disagree, see further down this post please. > > > Note that law 27 gives no redress for damage to NOS if the offender > > selects to replace his insufficient bid by any call that forces partner > > to pass for the rest of the auction, even if his replacement happens > > to give OS an extremely lucky result. > > > > Adjustment under Law 27B1(b) applies in the single case when there > > is an unjustified good result to offending side after the insufficient bid > > was corrected under law 27B1(a). > > Sorry, not correct. Remember, the headers are not part of the laws. > Usually that is unimportant, but it matters a great deal for L27. When I used the term "header" on law 16 I referred to the text in that law preceeding the indexed parts. I am aware that my term could lead to misinterpretations, but found no better term. My "header" is certainly part of the law. But I do not see how "header" is relevant here? > > > Law 27 was indeed changed from 1987 to 1997: > > > > In L27B1(a) as of 1987 the replacement bid did not have to be > > "not conventional", and there was no excluding reference to L16C2. > > Remember, prior to 1997, L16C2 explicitly said the withdrawn IB was AI. > The effect is the same now, but the exclusion of 16C2 had to be added > because of the change in 16C2. > > OK, here's my example. RHO opens 1C; offender bids an insufficient 1C > and corrects to 2C. Without the IB, 2C would have been two-suited. > > Of course partner is barred (27B2), but suppose 2C turns out to be a > great result. I don't know about you, but I adjust the score under > 27B1b. No, there is no way you can justify the use of Law 27B1(b) after a regulation of an insufficient bid under Law 27B2 ! Once the infraction has been regulated under Law 27B2 that is final and law 12B prohibits any attempt to adjust the score any further. (I could also use 72B1 but could not have done so prior to > 1997; For Law 72B1 to be applicable you must have some probability of intent ("offender could have known") which is hardly available for an ordinary insufficient bid. > before then, 27B1b would have been the only option.) Also, > notice what the adjustment is: it is the likely/at all probable result > after the opening 1C but before the IB, given that no natural 2C bid is > available. A fundamental difference in opinions is when Law 27B1(b) is applicable: What shall be the "normal result" for calculating damage? Is it the result that can be expected before the insufficient bid, or is it the result that can be expected after the insufficient bid when the offending side has been deprived a major part of their bidding system, depending upon whether the offender selects his corrective alternative under Law 27B1 or under Law 27B2? My view is that the offending side has already "paid the penalty" for the insufficient bid, and according to L27B1(a) accepted to have their "reduced" bidding system available for the rest of that auction. My view is that their "normally obtainable result" must be assessed under that condition. If you go back to the condition immediately before the IB you effectively cancel out the penalty for that infraction when assessing their "normal result". > > I think this refutes both of Sven's points. It shows a case where we > would apply 27B1b, and the case is not after 27B1a. I do not accept that: The laws make L27B1(b) applicable _only_ when an insufficient bid case has first been corrected under L27B1(a) > > Sven: I really think you need to reread the FLB. Remember, my original > opinion was identical to yours. I was certain of what the outcome > "ought to be" until I had a very careful look at what the Laws actually > say. Then I changed my mind. I saw no reason to change mine, but I agree with you that a clarification in this part of the laws is in order. Sven > > Grattan: looks like another one for your notebook! This would be a good > place to avoid mixing mechanical and UI penalties, IMHO. I'm not sure > how to do it, but _either_ the withdrawn bid is UI, no further penalty, > _or_ have a mechanical penalty, but everything is AI. Would it work to > give the NOS the choice of which penalty to impose? It would also be > really nice to eliminate the need to determine whether bids are > conventional or not. David S. had a nice idea about that. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 08:57:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UMswe17381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:54:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout02.sul.t-online.com (mailout02.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2UMsnH17367 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 08:54:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout02.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16rQea-0006Fc-01; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:44:52 +0100 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[80.135.136.179]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16rQeM-1HhyxkC; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:44:38 +0100 Message-ID: <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:44:34 +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] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum schrieb: > > I am bringing good news.An addition to our poor vocabulary. > Playing 5 card majors-- 1M -- 2M; 3+M and 6 -10 HCP . > 1H - P - 1H TD!!! corrected to 2H > 5+H 11+ HCP > As you see ,you convinced me. So thanks to our Law makers ,and all the > commentators ,who so convincingly e > xplain their intentions. > I eagerly await now the many suggestions how to use the new avenues opened. > Thanks > Israel Erdenbaum If theseguys really gain from this we can always adjust, this is completely undisputed. But if they don`t gain,(and could not possibly have gained) why should we adjust? In this case we are told that everybody and his pet dog would reach 4H. This players will reach 4H in 100 of 100 hands, not because of the 2H bid, not because of the insufficient bid, not because of the 4H bid, but because of 2 people playing bridge with each other hold opening bids with hearts. If we use the rules like Sven and Israel and possibly others want to do the "insufficient bidder" can only guess the right contract because he cannot possibly involve partner in any decision, except when the minimum bid in the mentioned suit is the one he wanted to take all along, because you will rule against him if he now reaches the contract the whole field reached. The OS will suffer from their insufficient bid lots of times, and they can never gain from it. What more do you want? If there is the slightest possibility that they wouldn`t have reached their final - and successful, otherwise no case - contract we can always adjust by way of 27B1b. 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 Sun Mar 31 09:22:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UNJaY20178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:19:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UNJRH20161 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:19:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA02258 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:08:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <015101c1d83f$d34d91e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5F396.F552CA2D@t-online.de> <00ae01c1d813$5c26a7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA62D90.DEB372FE@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:08:37 +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: "Matthias Berghaus" > > The "penalty" with Law 27B2 is that partner must pass for the remainder > > of the auction. The "penalty" with Law 27B1(a) is that the partnership is > > deprived a major part of their agreements for the remainder of the > > auction, and "damage" to opponents is established if they can "cancel" > > this effect through using the information conveyed by the insufficient bid. > > > > If the director judges that this is the case he shall use law 27B1(b) and > > assign an adjusted score. > > > > In order for you to fully understand Law 27B1(b) I challenge you to come > > forward with realistic examples on what kind of information is relevant for > > the application of this law. > > > > Sven > > Let`s have an example close to the actual one. In order to understand > the 4H bid one has to assume (if we disregard the possibility of actual > agreements in this situation [which I believe to be illegal]) that the > 4H bidder understood this as principle of fast arrival situation. So 3H > would (if both players think along the same lines [this appears to be > the case as 4H was passed out]) be forcing with slam interest. By > inference a bid of (for example) 4C would be a cue-bid (or an asking bid > or whatever), a bid that is systemically impossible (with this meaning). > Remember, the OS has no agreements in place (which would possibly be > very specific) and have to fall back on general principles, which may be > just what the doctor ordered for this specific deal. Now they reach or > avoid some contract because of information or inferences which would > otherwise not be available. I have a strong feeling that you overlook one important fact: Attempting to interpret corrections by the offender to 3H or 4H is completely irrelevant. Because these alternative bids are not "the lowest sufficient bid" they result in the application of Law 27B2 with the result that offender's partner must pass for the remainder of the auction. Thus Law 27B1(b) will never be applicable in these cases. The only relevant example is in this case a correction to 2H and the interpretation of that bid versus the interpretation of the original insufficient bid. Back to square one. > > Another example may be a marginal balanced hand which would only invite > game, despite it being a systemic opening bid. Now partner bids game > (why, he has an opening bid, hasn`t he?) while he would probably (or > even only possibly) reject an invitation. > > I don`t claim that there are an endless number of example hands, but IMO > there are more types of auctions where I would adjust the score than > there are types where you wouldn`t. In fact - besides the trivial cases > - I can`t come up with an example of a hand where I believe you wouldn`t > adjust. Maybe I`m wrong. Convince me. After an insufficient bid which is incontrovertibly not conventional, and which is replaced with the lowest sufficient bid with the same denomination, also incontrovertibly not conventional, I would let the auction proceed with no immediate interference. But if the insufficient bid conveyed an information essentially different from the information conveyed by the replacement bid as it should be interpreted given no preceeding insufficient bid; and if I judged that the information from the insufficient bid (only) could have been a base for the choice of calls made by the offender's partner to the degree that the offending side obtained a better result on the board than they could reasonably have expected had there been no infraction, and with the offender still making the same bid as to which he corrected the insufficient bid (puh!): Then, yes - I would assign an adjusted score. Period. 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 Mar 31 09:29:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2UNQbj21138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:26:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2UNQRH21120 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:26:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0364.bb.online.no [80.212.209.108]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA09768 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:15:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:15:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Matthias Berghaus" > In this case we are told that everybody and his pet dog would reach 4H. Would they reach 4H after an opening bid of 1H and a raise to 2H by the opener's partner? That is the question to be asked under law27B1(b). > This players will reach 4H in 100 of 100 hands, not because of the 2H > bid, not because of the insufficient bid, not because of the 4H bid, but > because of 2 people playing bridge with each other hold opening bids > with hearts. And that is the information conveyed by the insufficient bid that is damaging to the non-offending side AFTER the penalty under Law 27B1(a) has been paid. Your logic is an act to cancel out that penalty. 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 Mar 31 10:18:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2V0FLJ26762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:15:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2V0FBH26739 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:15:12 +1000 (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 g2V04Po02885 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:04:26 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:40:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <007301c1d76d$9b6b6b80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <007301c1d76d$9b6b6b80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <007301c1d76d$9b6b6b80$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >..... >> again, precisely so, Sven. We shouldn't be discussing this aspect at >> all. We're in the realms of 1H - 1H "O s**t, did you already open?" That >> was evident in DWS's original post. What should the TD have done when >> he made his ruling? ... and what did he do? is the real question. >> >> I maintain he completely failed to explain the interpretation of the Law >> to the offender - which to me at least is self-evident from the way the >> auction proceeded. What he should have done was to explain what would >> happen if .... >> >> ... but then you and I seem to be in accord on this point. > >Quite. > >But has it occurred to you that East may have had all alternatives properly >explained to him (including L27B1(b) )? David said nothing about TD not >explaining the relevant law(s). > >Frankly I suspect that East deliberatly chose to bid only 2H so that West >would be free to participate further in the auction, only forgetting that >with >a minimum opening hand West would be obliged to pass over a simple raise. > >But with 16 HCP or extra distributional values West would legally bid 3H >or a trial bid (invitational), and with 19 HCP West would jump to game. > >As I wrote in another post: I would seriously consider adjusting the score >to 6H down 1 for both sides on the ground that West has shown a strong >opening hand around 19 HCP. > >East needs a convincing explanation for not proceeding to slam. > I concur with this 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/ -- 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 Mar 31 10:24:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2V0Lmi27468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:21:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2V0LdH27446 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:21:39 +1000 (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 g2V0Ato02889 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 00:10:55 GMT Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:46:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <021d01c1d81f$144c1200$684f003e@erdnbaum> In-Reply-To: <021d01c1d81f$144c1200$684f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <021d01c1d81f$144c1200$684f003e@erdnbaum>, Israel Erdnbaum writes >If you are satisfied that something in brackets of Law 27 can make the 2H >AI[as well as the "constrained to bid" part] >you are welcome. >In my book day is day and no Law can make it night. >Best regards >Israel Erdenbaum Israel. In my opinion the only way we get to 4H is by the "TD error" route. So in a way i agree with you. Law 27 isn't even close to allowing it IMO. cheers john >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" >To: >Sent: Friday, March 29, 2002 10:08 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > >> > From: "Sven Pran" >> > Law 27B1(b) requests the Director to assign an adjusted score if he >> > finds that the insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage >> > the non-offending side. >> > >> > The non-offending side can be damaged this way if the insufficient bid >> > conveyed information very different from the information conveyed by >> > the replacing bid, and if such damaging information is used in such a >> > way by the offender's partner that the offending side receives a score >> > on the board better than they would have received without using this >> > information. >> >> This is not everyone's interpretation, but let that go for now. >> >> OK, say you assign an adjusted score under L27B1b and 12C2. What score >> shall it be? Please consider very carefully what the infraction is. >> (Hint: the withdrawn bid is AI because L16C2 does not apply. Also, the >> operation of law -- in this case, that responder was constrained to bid >> 2H or else bar opener -- is also AI.) >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 13:36:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2V3Vne17660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:31:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2V3VeH17656 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:31:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2V3Kso14982; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:20:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:11:21 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Israel Erdnbaum cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001e01c1d82f$6cfbfa40$ec4e003e@erdnbaum> Message-ID: <20020330222055-R01050000-66EBFD81-442C-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/30/02 at 11:10 PM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > I am sorry if you misunderstood ,I don't ask for any further penalty.It's > mr.Lafay who is complaining that if UI were adopted he would have had to bid > 4H and this would have been his 'penalty' in fact far from being penalised > he was actually rewarded*[not by chance but by the *Law makers] for making > an insufficient bid . Um. You might have a point - if this were a case where getting to game is at all chancy. Given that the traveller seems to have indicated that getting to game (in a normal auction) is a piece of cake, I don't see that the laws provided any "reward". And they certainly would not have done if there were in fact a slam available, to which they might now not get. (I agree that if they get to an unlikely slam because of the IB, 27B2(b) should kick in.) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 14:04:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2V41gj17685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:01:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2V41ZH17681 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:01:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g2V3ogo29050; Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:50:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 22:23:36 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Sven Pran cc: Bridge Laws Submissions X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <015101c1d83f$d34d91e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020330225042-R01050000-900E8CFF-4430-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/31/02 at 12:08 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > But if the insufficient bid conveyed an information essentially > different from the information conveyed by the replacement bid as it > should be interpreted given no preceeding insufficient bid; and if I > judged that the information from the insufficient bid (only) could > have been a base for the choice of calls made by the offender's > partner to the degree that the offending side obtained a better > result on the board than they could reasonably have expected had > there been no infraction, and with the offender still making the same > bid as to which he corrected the insufficient bid (puh!): Then, yes - > I would assign an adjusted score. Period. And I would appeal. Period. To the NCBO, if necessary (cf. Law 93C). I expect I would lose, at least in Norway, but I'd still appeal. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 19:10:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2V95NS08872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:05:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout03.sul.t-online.com (mailout03.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2V95DH08851 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:05:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout03.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16rb6X-0004hP-04; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:54:25 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[80.135.137.88]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16rb6R-1wqzg0C; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:54:19 +0200 Message-ID: <3CA6CEB6.8CC7B6CA@t-online.de> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:54:14 +0200 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [de]C-CCK-MCD DT (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran schrieb: > > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > > > In this case we are told that everybody and his pet dog would reach 4H. > > Would they reach 4H after an opening bid of 1H and a raise to 2H by > the opener's partner? That is the question to be asked under law27B1(b). Sven, please. I know I repeat myself, but here I go again: Is there any hand East is allowed to have for this 2H except the one he always bids 2H on without the score being adjusted? I haven`t seen any example from you. And if the answer is "no", as I suspect it will be, what is the exclusion of Law 16C2 for? > > This players will reach 4H in 100 of 100 hands, not because of the 2H > > bid, not because of the insufficient bid, not because of the 4H bid, but > > because of 2 people playing bridge with each other hold opening bids > > with hearts. > > And that is the information conveyed by the insufficient bid that is > damaging to the non-offending side AFTER the penalty under Law 27B1(a) > has been paid. Your logic is an act to cancel out that penalty. After this start they are deprived of their bidding system. This is penalty enough. > Sven > 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 Sun Mar 31 19:21:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2V9I1A10507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:18:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2V9HpH10488 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:17:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95963.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.219] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2V973r29432 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:07:03 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA6D1EA.8040503@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:07:54 +0200 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] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: "Matthias Berghaus" > > >>In this case we are told that everybody and his pet dog would reach 4H. >> > > Would they reach 4H after an opening bid of 1H and a raise to 2H by > the opener's partner? That is the question to be asked under law27B1(b). > No Sven, it is not. It only is under your interpretation of that law, and you are now trying to convince us that your interpretation is the correct one by arguments that are based on your interpretation. That does not wash. > >>This players will reach 4H in 100 of 100 hands, not because of the 2H >>bid, not because of the insufficient bid, not because of the 4H bid, but >>because of 2 people playing bridge with each other hold opening bids >>with hearts. >> > > And that is the information conveyed by the insufficient bid that is > damaging to the non-offending side AFTER the penalty under Law 27B1(a) > has been paid. Your logic is an act to cancel out that penalty. > No Sven, the TD should explain that the information conveyed in the original bid is AI, except when that information would not have been passable without 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/ > > -- 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 Mar 31 19:31:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2V9Ss911695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:28:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout09.sul.t-online.com (mailout09.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2V9ShH11674 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:28:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout09.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16razD-0002Nk-09; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:46:51 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[217.82.216.186]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16razA-132LB2C; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:46:48 +0200 Message-ID: <3CA6CCF3.FA1173F3@t-online.de> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:46:43 +0200 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [de]C-CCK-MCD DT (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sven Pran CC: Bridge Laws Submissions Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5F396.F552CA2D@t-online.de> <00ae01c1d813$5c26a7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA62D90.DEB372FE@t-online.de> <015101c1d83f$d34d91e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran schrieb: > > > Let`s have an example close to the actual one. In order to understand > > the 4H bid one has to assume (if we disregard the possibility of actual > > agreements in this situation [which I believe to be illegal]) that the > > 4H bidder understood this as principle of fast arrival situation. So 3H > > would (if both players think along the same lines [this appears to be > > the case as 4H was passed out]) be forcing with slam interest. By > > inference a bid of (for example) 4C would be a cue-bid (or an asking bid > > or whatever), a bid that is systemically impossible (with this meaning). > > Remember, the OS has no agreements in place (which would possibly be > > very specific) and have to fall back on general principles, which may be > > just what the doctor ordered for this specific deal. Now they reach or > > avoid some contract because of information or inferences which would > > otherwise not be available. > > I have a strong feeling that you overlook one important fact: > Attempting to interpret corrections by the offender to 3H or 4H is > completely > irrelevant. Because these alternative bids are not "the lowest sufficient > bid" > they result in the application of Law 27B2 with the result that offender's > partner must pass for the remainder of the auction. Thus Law 27B1(b) will > never be applicable in these cases. It is you who overlooks something, Sven: I am talking about West here. The auction goes 1H-p-1H (insufficient and corrected to 2H)-p- and now it is the opening bidder`s turn again. He is not barred from the auction, since partner corrected his insufficient bid to the lowest of the same denomination, and both are not conventional. > The only relevant example is in this case a correction to 2H and the > interpretation of that bid versus the interpretation of the original > insufficient > bid. > > Back to square one. That`s the square I`m on, see above. > > > > Another example may be a marginal balanced hand which would only invite > > game, despite it being a systemic opening bid. Now partner bids game > > (why, he has an opening bid, hasn`t he?) while he would probably (or > > even only possibly) reject an invitation. > > > > I don`t claim that there are an endless number of example hands, but IMO > > there are more types of auctions where I would adjust the score than > > there are types where you wouldn`t. In fact - besides the trivial cases > > - I can`t come up with an example of a hand where I believe you wouldn`t > > adjust. Maybe I`m wrong. Convince me. > > After an insufficient bid which is incontrovertibly not conventional, and > which > is replaced with the lowest sufficient bid with the same denomination, also > incontrovertibly not conventional, I would let the auction proceed with no > immediate interference. But if the insufficient bid conveyed an information > essentially different from the information conveyed by the replacement bid > as it should be interpreted given no preceeding insufficient bid; and if I > judged that the information from the insufficient bid (only) could have been > a base for the choice of calls made by the offender's partner to the degree > that the offending side obtained a better result on the board than they > could > reasonably have expected had there been no infraction, and with the offender > still making the same bid as to which he corrected the insufficient bid > (puh!): > Then, yes - I would assign an adjusted score. Period. I have given you an example where I would adjust the score after the bidding in question, others have done so too. I still haven`t seen an example where you wouldn`t adjust the score in a situation like the one we discuss here, except the trivial one where East wanted to bid 2H all the time. With your way of applying the rules East has the following choices ( if he "opened" 1H): 1. Guess the right contract. 2. Bid 2H and pray that partner is strong enough to act. Now he will have to guess again, because he will have no way to show the hand he actually holds. In all probability partner or the TD will hang him. 3. Bid 2H and hope that partner doesn`t act and 4H does not make 10 tricks by some chance. Good going. This are the choices you give East on a hand where he can never beat the field because of 27B1b (well, almost never). Why was Law 16C2 specifically suspended if you adjust the score afterwards, regardless of what happened? What hand is East allowed to have to not have his score adjusted? As far as I can see from your arguments only 6-9 HCP and a fit, the "trivial" case. This is what the wording in Law 27 is for? > Sven > 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 Sun Mar 31 20:03:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VA0XO15791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:00:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VA0MH15769 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:00:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3076.bb.online.no [80.212.220.4]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA08757 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:49:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CEB6.8CC7B6CA@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:49:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Matthias Berghaus" > > > In this case we are told that everybody and his pet dog would reach 4H. > > > > Would they reach 4H after an opening bid of 1H and a raise to 2H by > > the opener's partner? That is the question to be asked under law27B1(b). > > Sven, please. I know I repeat myself, but here I go again: Is there any > hand East is allowed to have for this 2H except the one he always bids > 2H on without the score being adjusted? I haven`t seen any example from > you. And if the answer is "no", as I suspect it will be, what is the > exclusion of Law 16C2 for? East has a dilemma: If he wants to allow partner (West) to continue in the auction he must bid 2H even with a hand for which that bid would never be the choice under normal conditions. So he can either show his hand and force partner to pass for the rest of that auction, or make a bid which doesn't tell partner the correct story of his hand, but hope that he will have a chance to still reach the best contract. Those are the penalty alternatives and it does not make any sense if the effect of the penalty under L27B1(a) shall subsequenctly be cancelled due to an interpretation on how or why L27B1(a) introduces L27B1(b). Law27B1(a) excludes Law16C2 but instead leads TD to Law 27B2(b) which has the effect that if West makes use of the information he received from the insufficient bid (that East has a hand with opening values) in a way giving offending side a better result than they would have got if West had confined himself to using only the information he had available from Easts bid (2H) because of the penalty, then the Director shall assign an adjusted score. One may ask, and I cannot answer directly why Law 16C2 is "replaced" by Law 27B1(b) here. Except that Law 27B1(b) does not use the term UI they both have essentially the same function. (If not then L27B2(b) would have been redundant). > > > > This players will reach 4H in 100 of 100 hands, not because of the 2H > > > bid, not because of the insufficient bid, not because of the 4H bid, but > > > because of 2 people playing bridge with each other hold opening bids > > > with hearts. > > > > And that is the information conveyed by the insufficient bid that is > > damaging to the non-offending side AFTER the penalty under Law 27B1(a) > > has been paid. Your logic is an act to cancel out that penalty. > > After this start they are deprived of their bidding system. This is > penalty enough. Exactly, but allowing West to use the information from the insufficient bid that East indeed has a hand with opening values will cancel out this penalty. 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 Mar 31 20:11:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VA7xa16851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:07:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VA7mH16824 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:07:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3076.bb.online.no [80.212.220.4]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA03154 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:56:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005301c1d89a$652b8a40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6D1EA.8040503@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:56:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > > And that is the information conveyed by the insufficient bid that is > > damaging to the non-offending side AFTER the penalty under Law 27B1(a) > > has been paid. Your logic is an act to cancel out that penalty. > > > > > No Sven, the TD should explain that the information conveyed in the > original bid is AI, except when that information would not have been > passable without it. Can you give me any example of a bidding system where partner to a player making an opening bid has no legal call (or sequence of calls) showing that he too has a hand with values to make an opening bid? 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 Mar 31 20:38:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VAZgm19939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:35:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VAZVH19910 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:35:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3076.bb.online.no [80.212.220.4]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA23284 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:24:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005d01c1d89e$44e6e6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5F396.F552CA2D@t-online.de> <00ae01c1d813$5c26a7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA62D90.DEB372FE@t-online.de> <015101c1d83f$d34d91e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CCF3.FA1173F3@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:24:41 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Matthias Berghaus" > > > Let`s have an example close to the actual one. In order to understand > > > the 4H bid one has to assume (if we disregard the possibility of actual > > > agreements in this situation [which I believe to be illegal]) that the > > > 4H bidder understood this as principle of fast arrival situation. So 3H > > > would (if both players think along the same lines [this appears to be > > > the case as 4H was passed out]) be forcing with slam interest. By > > > inference a bid of (for example) 4C would be a cue-bid (or an asking bid > > > or whatever), a bid that is systemically impossible (with this meaning). > > > Remember, the OS has no agreements in place (which would possibly be > > > very specific) and have to fall back on general principles, which may be > > > just what the doctor ordered for this specific deal. Now they reach or > > > avoid some contract because of information or inferences which would > > > otherwise not be available. > > > > I have a strong feeling that you overlook one important fact: .....(snip) > It is you who overlooks something, Sven: I am talking about West here. Sorry, yes I read your post as if East was bidding at various levels. ¨The way I read L27B1(b): If West now bids 3H (invitational, showing an opening strength around 16HCP) or 4H (showing an opening strength arount 19HCP) he has apparently not made any use of the information conveyed to him by the insufficient bid and there is no reason for adjustment. (Except that East would have a problem with me: "Why do you not explore the possibilities of a slam when the combined strength appears to be 32 HCP having a nice fit?") But when West bid 4H on a minimum opening hand I cannot interpret that in any other way than that he did make use of the information conveyed to him by the insufficient bid, and if the result from that shall stand then the penalty from Law27B1(a) has effectively been nullified. I cannot accept this as the intention of Law 27B1. If it should be, then why Law27B1(b)? .....(more snip) > I have given you an example where I would adjust the score after the > bidding in question, others have done so too. I still haven`t seen an > example where you wouldn`t adjust the score in a situation like the one > we discuss here, except the trivial one where East wanted to bid 2H all > the time. With your way of applying the rules East has the following > choices ( if he "opened" 1H): > 1. Guess the right contract. > 2. Bid 2H and pray that partner is strong enough to act. Now he will > have to guess again, because he will have no way to show the hand he > actually holds. In all probability partner or the TD will hang him. > 3. Bid 2H and hope that partner doesn`t act and 4H does not make 10 > tricks by some chance. > > Good going. This are the choices you give East on a hand where he can > never beat the field because of 27B1b (well, almost never). > Why was Law 16C2 specifically suspended if you adjust the score > afterwards, regardless of what happened? What hand is East allowed to > have to not have his score adjusted? As far as I can see from your > arguments only 6-9 HCP and a fit, the "trivial" case. This is what the > wording in Law 27 is for? Yes, IMO you are on the correct track here. A primary example where I would not adjust is: 1H - 2S - 2H* Insufficient, corrected to 3H There is not much difference between the "natural" information from the simple raise to 2H and the competing support raise to 3H, and here I see no reason to adjust the result nor to consider the information from the 2H insufficient bid as UI for partner. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 20:45:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VAgdl20685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:42:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VAgTH20668 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:42:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95963.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.219] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2VAVdr25335 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:31:39 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA6E5BE.9090903@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:32:30 +0200 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] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CEB6.8CC7B6CA@t-online.de> <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 really had to read until (see **** below) Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Matthias Berghaus" > > >>>>In this case we are told that everybody and his pet dog would reach >>>> > 4H. > >>>Would they reach 4H after an opening bid of 1H and a raise to 2H by >>>the opener's partner? That is the question to be asked under law27B1(b). >>> >>Sven, please. I know I repeat myself, but here I go again: Is there any >>hand East is allowed to have for this 2H except the one he always bids >>2H on without the score being adjusted? I haven`t seen any example from >>you. And if the answer is "no", as I suspect it will be, what is the >>exclusion of Law 16C2 for? >> > > East has a dilemma: If he wants to allow partner (West) to continue in the > auction he must bid 2H even with a hand for which that bid would never be > the choice under normal conditions. So he can either show his hand and > force partner to pass for the rest of that auction, or make a bid which > doesn't tell partner the correct story of his hand, but hope that he will > have > a chance to still reach the best contract. Those are the penalty > alternatives > and it does not make any sense if the effect of the penalty under L27B1(a) > shall subsequenctly be cancelled due to an interpretation on how or why > L27B1(a) introduces L27B1(b). > > Law27B1(a) excludes Law16C2 but instead leads TD to Law 27B2(b) which > has the effect that if West makes use of the information he received from > the insufficient bid (that East has a hand with opening values) in a way > giving **** everything you write higher is completely and utterly right, and then you say ... > offending side a better result than they would have got if West had confined > himself to using only the information he had available from Easts bid (2H) > because of the penalty, then the Director shall assign an adjusted score. > substitute : - a better result than they would have got if West had not made the insufficient bid. > One may ask, and I cannot answer directly why Law 16C2 is "replaced" by > Law 27B1(b) here. Except that Law 27B1(b) does not use the term UI they > both have essentially the same function. (If not then L27B2(b) would have > been redundant). > Well, let me try and explain again. The LC, in their infinite wisdom, have tried to allow play to proceed as normal as possible. That means that East should now bid as low as possible (not depriving opponents of bidding space, not creating extra space for themselves) West is allowed to also bid normally, and contribute to the auction. This means that there will be some UI, and if L16 would remain in force, there would be no possibility of normal bidding. So the Lawmakers abolished L16 in this case. And in order to not have players make lots of unpunished underbids, they introduced a new law - preventing the use of "extra" information. It was never their intention that the substitute bid should be comprehended in the system, which is why they made the first bid AI after all. So we can have a discussion about how much "extra" information is contained in this example - and I haven't yet seen this done - I'm actually still waiting to make up my mind about this. But we cannot shortcut this decision by the manner you suggest - that West should interpret East's 2He as 6-9HCP. That is simply not true. So please stop this part of the discussion - it is not leading anywhere. And let's now focus on whether or not the 1He did in fact convey "such information as to damage NOs" > >>>>This players will reach 4H in 100 of 100 hands, not because of the 2H >>>>bid, not because of the insufficient bid, not because of the 4H bid, >>>> > but > >>>>because of 2 people playing bridge with each other hold opening bids >>>>with hearts. >>>> >>>And that is the information conveyed by the insufficient bid that is >>>damaging to the non-offending side AFTER the penalty under Law 27B1(a) >>>has been paid. Your logic is an act to cancel out that penalty. >>> >>After this start they are deprived of their bidding system. This is >>penalty enough. >> > > Exactly, but allowing West to use the information from the insufficient bid > that East indeed has a hand with opening values will cancel out this > penalty. > > 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 Sun Mar 31 20:48:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VAjpn21035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:45:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VAjeH21017 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:45:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95963.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.219] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2VAYlr28674 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:34:47 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA6E67B.8090703@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 12:35:39 +0200 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] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6D1EA.8040503@village.uunet.be> <005301c1d89a$652b8a40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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" > >>>And that is the information conveyed by the insufficient bid that is >>>damaging to the non-offending side AFTER the penalty under Law 27B1(a) >>>has been paid. Your logic is an act to cancel out that penalty. >>> >>> >> >>No Sven, the TD should explain that the information conveyed in the >>original bid is AI, except when that information would not have been >>passable without it. >> > > Can you give me any example of a bidding system where partner to a > player making an opening bid has no legal call (or sequence of calls) > showing that he too has a hand with values to make an opening bid? > No, I can't, but then this is not the only situation in which L27B1b will be invoked, is it ? How about : 1Sp (4He) 4Sp ? This can easily be done with less than opening values, and it is difficult to show values as well as mere game potential (or no defensive values). So 1Sp (4He) 1Sp/4Sp would convey information that cannot be exchanged without the insufficient bid. So I would allow the correction to 4Sp, and opener can still go on, but now only with an extreme monster. > > -- 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 Mar 31 20:56:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VArCI21948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:53:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g2VAqxH21922 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:53:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.64.219] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rciI-0000eD-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 11:37:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c1d8a0$cd21dcc0$db40e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "William Schoder" , "Max Bavin" References: <20020330225042-R01050000-900E8CFF-4430-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:54:55 +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 Endicott To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 4:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 3/31/02 at 12:08 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > > I would assign an adjusted score. Period. > > And I would appeal. Period. To the NCBO, if >necessary (cf. Law 93C). > > I expect I would lose, at least in Norway, but > I'd still appeal. :-) > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ Law 27B1(b) commences "If the Director judges..... " This at least ensures that Ed will get different rulings depending on which Directors (who will consult) and what AC (who probably will not, but have to grapple the CoP's insistence that the appellant must show why the Director [with his back-up] is wrong). It could be a long night. :-) I wonder if the CTD and Asst. CTD for Montreal agree on this? Whatever they might do it looks as though the AC would get its turn. ~ G ~ +=+ West North East South 1H P 1H 2H P 4H Ends. Contract makes ten tricks. West has a bare minimum opener. Director recalled. Let us assume the Director read Law 27B1 to the players when called the first 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 Sun Mar 31 21:23:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VBLFV25249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:21:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VBL4H25229 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:21:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-223-155.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.223.155]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id F2CEB36E4E; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:10:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003c01c1d8a4$565c24c0$9bdff1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Rui Marques" , "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:06:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rui after message 713 on this thread: >I will correct myself: "Showing opening strength" does not trigger >27B1b, but it is UI. And I agree that it is difficult to come up with >examples of application of 27B1b... What amazes me most is that most contributions seem to express bewilderment : 'what are the laws doing to us again?' This subject is dealt with in the first course for those taking the first steps in becoming a TD in my country, when we teach our pupils how to rule in the five most occurring irregularities in bridge. And to be honest I never had any doubt that our approach is congruent with the interpretation of the WBF LC even if it never gave one. I assume that we need to put it on our agenda thanks to David and your answers. Let us see: The information from the I.B. is authorized. So, I don't agree with Rui if he says that 1H showing opening strength is UI. If 16C2 doesn't apply it doesn't apply! No U.I. as far as the use of it is concerned. But this generous approach could cause damage to the non -offending side and that makes it necessary to be able to apply something as L27B1b. How and when to do that? We tell our pupils that damage exists when the contract to be played (probably) would not have been the same had the I.B. not ocurred. In other words if the IB helps the pair to reach a profitable contract the TD needs to give an adjusted score. In the example here that seems not to be the case. When my partner opens 1H and I have a hand with which I would have opened 1H even we almost certainly will reach 4H (or more). No damage. When my partner now bids to 7H knowing that we have 10 hearts with AK, which he doesn't know after 1H - 2C etc. the TD has to consider adjudication. How to adjust? I tend to average-plus for both sides, am willing to accept average/average plus and don't agree with average-minus/average-plus. Giving an asigned adjusted score is possible but not obvious. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 21:25:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VBMPP25360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:22:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VBMDH25343 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:22:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3076.bb.online.no [80.212.220.4]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA27361 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:11:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007701c1d8a4$ca48f660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CEB6.8CC7B6CA@t-online.de> <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6E5BE.9090903@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:11:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > **** > > everything you write higher is completely and utterly right, Thank you. > and then you say ... > > > > offending side a better result than they would have got if West had confined > > himself to using only the information he had available from Easts bid (2H) > > because of the penalty, then the Director shall assign an adjusted score. > > > > > substitute : > > - a better result than they would have got if West had not made the > insufficient bid.> > > > One may ask, and I cannot answer directly why Law 16C2 is "replaced" by > > Law 27B1(b) here. Except that Law 27B1(b) does not use the term UI they > > both have essentially the same function. (If not then L27B2(b) would have > > been redundant). > > > > > Well, let me try and explain again. > The LC, in their infinite wisdom, have tried to allow play to proceed > as normal as possible. That means that East should now bid as low as > possible (not depriving opponents of bidding space, not creating extra > space for themselves) West is allowed to also bid normally, and > contribute to the auction. Here we agree completely. (Offender has a free choice between L27B1 and L27B2) > This means that there will be some UI, and if L16 would remain in > force, there would be no possibility of normal bidding. There may be some UI, but not neccessarily. The UI from the 2H insufficient bid in the sequence: 1H - 2S - 2H* corrected to 3H is negligible if at all existing. > So the Lawmakers abolished L16 in this case. But they also inserted L27B1(b) which carries much of the same principles as the abolished L16C2 > And in order to not have players make lots of unpunished underbids, > they introduced a new law - preventing the use of "extra" information. > It was never their intention that the substitute bid should be > comprehended in the system, which is why they made the first bid AI > after all. This is definitely not the interpretation given in any of the comments I have seen on laws before the 1997 laws, and there was nothing I can remember from the introduction of the 1997 laws indicating that the law committee intended a change along such lines. > So we can have a discussion about how much "extra" information is > contained in this example - and I haven't yet seen this done - I'm > actually still waiting to make up my mind about this. All the authoritative examples I have seen emphasizes that if the insufficient bid appeared to be a regular opening bid then the fact that the offender had shown such values with his insufficient bid is a primary target for the clause "such information as to damage the non-offending side" in Law 27B1(b) > But we cannot shortcut this decision by the manner you suggest - that > West should interpret East's 2He as 6-9HCP. > > That is simply not true. Your opinion? Or official opinion by the WBFLC (or whoever)? 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 Mar 31 21:36:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VBXW426609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:33:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VBXMH26589 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:33:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-224-6.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.224.6]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 23DAF37564; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:22:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004701c1d8a6$0f817e40$9bdff1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Olivier Beauvillain" , "Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:20:18 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > For me it's clear cut : > Score stands. > L 27 B 1 a says if E bid 2H, no penalty AND L 16 C 2 doesn't apply. > So, why change? You can use 27B1b if they use space to find a better > substitute contract whitch was not available (6H, 6C in 4-3, 3NT, etc.) > Olivier. Vive La France, Belle Paque Olivier, ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 21:48:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VBirq27876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:44:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VBihH27849 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:44:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-95963.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.246.219] (may be forged)) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g2VBXtr28319 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:33:56 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA6F457.2000301@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:34:47 +0200 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] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CEB6.8CC7B6CA@t-online.de> <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6E5BE.9090903@village.uunet.be> <007701c1d8a4$ca48f660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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: > > Here we agree completely. > (Offender has a free choice between L27B1 and L27B2) > > >>This means that there will be some UI, and if L16 would remain in >>force, there would be no possibility of normal bidding. >> > > There may be some UI, but not neccessarily. > The UI from the 2H insufficient bid in the sequence: > 1H - 2S - 2H* corrected to 3H > is negligible if at all existing. > I would not say negligible - not for L16 purposes. This is certainly one reason why L16 was sustituted with L21B1b. > >> So the Lawmakers abolished L16 in this case. >> > > But they also inserted L27B1(b) which carries much of the same > principles as the abolished L16C2 > No it does not - certainly not. L16 says that a player may not use, if a logical alternative exists. L21B1b says nothing of the sort. As long as opponents are not damaged, partner is allowed to use the "U"I. > >>And in order to not have players make lots of unpunished underbids, >>they introduced a new law - preventing the use of "extra" information. >>It was never their intention that the substitute bid should be >>comprehended in the system, which is why they made the first bid AI >>after all. >> > > This is definitely not the interpretation given in any of the comments I > have seen on laws before the 1997 laws, and there was nothing I can > remember from the introduction of the 1997 laws indicating that the > law committee intended a change along such lines. > Well, I certainly remember examples in which the player was allowed to use the UI. I distinctly remember examples before 1997 where the higher bid was a transfer and we were taught to say, "yes you are entitled to know that's not a transfer". That example has gone now, of course, but it did exist back then. > >>So we can have a discussion about how much "extra" information is >>contained in this example - and I haven't yet seen this done - I'm >>actually still waiting to make up my mind about this. >> > > All the authoritative examples I have seen emphasizes that if the > insufficient bid appeared to be a regular opening bid then the fact > that the offender had shown such values with his insufficient bid is > a primary target for the clause "such information as to damage the > non-offending side" in Law 27B1(b) > Now we are again at a point where sensible discussion is possible. It would also appear to me that changing opening values to a mere raise is a vast amount of information. And I would not allow it without very good cause. > >>But we cannot shortcut this decision by the manner you suggest - that >>West should interpret East's 2He as 6-9HCP. >> >>That is simply not true. >> > > Your opinion? Or official opinion by the WBFLC (or whoever)? > Well, it seems a widely held opinion. I am in no position to give official opinions. And I do hope you understand what I am saying : I have not yet formed a definite opinion on the case at hand, just at your insistence that it is impossible to change 1He to 2He and partner knowing there are opening values. It is not UI (we know that) and there is no reason to apply L21B1b as if it is - on no other basis than that 2He ought to show 6-9 and he has told partner he has 13+. > 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 Sun Mar 31 21:52:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VBoBa28459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:50:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VBo0H28441 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:50:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3076.bb.online.no [80.212.220.4]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA09960; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:39:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008301c1d8a8$ab5d2c40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "bridge-laws" References: <20020330225042-R01050000-900E8CFF-4430-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <000401c1d8a0$cd21dcc0$db40e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:39:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > +=+ Law 27B1(b) commences "If the Director judges..... " > This at least ensures that Ed will get different rulings > depending on which Directors (who will consult) and > what AC (who probably will not, but have to grapple > the CoP's insistence that the appellant must show why > the Director [with his back-up] is wrong). It could be a > long night. :-) > I wonder if the CTD and Asst. CTD for Montreal > agree on this? Whatever they might do it looks as > though the AC would get its turn. ~ G ~ +=+ > > West North East South > 1H P 1H > 2H P > 4H Ends. > > Contract makes ten tricks. West has a > bare minimum opener. Director recalled. > Let us assume the Director read Law 27B1 > to the players when called the first time. I should appreciate information from Grattan if there exist any official views on two specific questions related to Law 27B1(b), and in case what such views are: 1: When the insufficient bid apparently shows opening strength while the replacement bid (under law 27B1(a) ) will just indicate a simple raise, is the information that offender has shown opening strength a candidate for "information as to damage the non-offending side" in Law 27B1(b)? 2: When assigning an adjusted score under Law 27B1(b) will the basis for assessing the damage be the expected result had the insufficient bid never occurred, or is it the expected result had the offender's partner disregarded the information he received from the insufficient bid and only acted as if the replacement bid were the only bid made by the offender in that round? regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 22:06:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VC30Z29833 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:03:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.tiscali.nl (rhea.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.178]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VC2nH29810 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:02:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (unknown [195.240.61.156]) by rhea.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E39B0373BF for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:52:02 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004f01c1d8aa$2cb23140$9bdff1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: Subject: [BLML] more than sufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:49:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004C_01C1D8BA.E9BED940" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C1D8BA.E9BED940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Last week in my club:=20 I had QJ6 A87 A5 AKQ107 and opened 2NT, my partner responded 4NT which according to our system = shows a good hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts. His proposal a couple of = months ago, without any discussion. I don't like it but never objected = so we play it.Opponents asked and I explained. I didn't know what to do = so I bid 6S (probably wrong we played top-bottom). Now my partner bid = 6NT which I made. He had K73 KQ5 QJ73 852 DK was on side and clubs where 4 -1 in the right hand.=20 He had forgotten the convention and made a quantitative raise (that is = how we call it in Dutch). Question: do you allow 6NT? Tell me before = Thursday. We didn't even call the TD, but I am less certain at the = moment. Should he read my hand as AQxxxx Ax Kx AKx or something similar? = Isn't 6NT the better contract anyway, though he hasn't any fork? Any = difference between teams and top-bottom? =20 Now I know that I should have protected our side by bidding 6NT myself. We don't play this convention anymore.=20 ton=20 ------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C1D8BA.E9BED940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Last week in my club:
 
I had     = QJ6
          &nbs= p;=20 A87
          &nbs= p;=20 A5
          &nbs= p;=20 AKQ107
 
and opened 2NT, my partner responded 4NT which = according to=20 our system shows a good hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts. His proposal a = couple=20 of months ago, without any discussion.  I don't like it but never = objected=20 so we play it.Opponents asked and I explained. I didn't know what to do = so I bid=20 6S (probably wrong we played top-bottom). Now my partner bid 6NT which I = made.=20 He had
 
          &nbs= p;=20 K73
          &nbs= p;=20 KQ5
          &nbs= p;=20 QJ73
          &nbs= p;=20 852
 
DK was on side and clubs where 4 -1 in the right = hand.=20
He had forgotten the convention and made a = quantitative raise=20 (that is how we call it in Dutch).  Question: do you allow 6NT? = Tell me=20 before Thursday. We didn't even call the TD, but I am less certain at = the=20 moment. Should he read my hand as AQxxxx Ax Kx AKx or something similar? = Isn't=20 6NT the better contract anyway, though he hasn't any fork? Any = difference=20 between teams and top-bottom? 
Now I know that I should have protected our side by = bidding=20 6NT myself.
We don't play this convention anymore.
 
 
ton
 
------=_NextPart_000_004C_01C1D8BA.E9BED940-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Mar 31 22:18:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VCF3D01199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:15:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front2.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2VCEqH01181 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:14:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 19367 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2002 12:03:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c1) (217.129.63.158) by front2.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 31 Mar 2002 12:03:53 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "'Ton Kooijman'" , "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:04:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000001c1d8ac$26c4f0e0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <003c01c1d8a4$565c24c0$9bdff1c3@tkooij> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2VCEuH01186 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I fully agree with Ton in the approach to this subject. However, in this particular case, which is becoming one of the longest threads, my point of view is that for the auction 1H Pass 1H the information that whatever information opener may get from the insuficient 1H bid, by itself, is authorized (not entering here on details about 27B1b, for now). However, the information that arises from "whoops, I wanted to open 1H", or the TD asking why in front of all the players and the player answering "I wanted to open 1H", that, is unauthorized (and as I regard it, a mistake from the TD in this case). No words spoken, if the opener takes the chance that 1H Pass 1H from partner probably shows an opening bid, and goes ahead, I fully support the "no damage". If opener´s partner could not keep his reactions to what they should be, is there damage? What are the differences between 1H Pass 1H whoops I thought I was dealer And 1H Pass 1H sorry I wanted to bid 2H (?) -----Original Message----- From: Ton Kooijman [mailto:t.kooyman@worldonline.nl] Sent: domingo, 31 de Março de 2002 12:06 To: Rui Marques; 'Bridge Laws' Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Rui after message 713 on this thread: >I will correct myself: "Showing opening strength" does not trigger >27B1b, but it is UI. And I agree that it is difficult to come up with >examples of application of 27B1b... What amazes me most is that most contributions seem to express bewilderment : 'what are the laws doing to us again?' This subject is dealt with in the first course for those taking the first steps in becoming a TD in my country, when we teach our pupils how to rule in the five most occurring irregularities in bridge. And to be honest I never had any doubt that our approach is congruent with the interpretation of the WBF LC even if it never gave one. I assume that we need to put it on our agenda thanks to David and your answers. Let us see: The information from the I.B. is authorized. So, I don't agree with Rui if he says that 1H showing opening strength is UI. If 16C2 doesn't apply it doesn't apply! No U.I. as far as the use of it is concerned. But this generous approach could cause damage to the non -offending side and that makes it necessary to be able to apply something as L27B1b. How and when to do that? We tell our pupils that damage exists when the contract to be played (probably) would not have been the same had the I.B. not ocurred. In other words if the IB helps the pair to reach a profitable contract the TD needs to give an adjusted score. In the example here that seems not to be the case. When my partner opens 1H and I have a hand with which I would have opened 1H even we almost certainly will reach 4H (or more). No damage. When my partner now bids to 7H knowing that we have 10 hearts with AK, which he doesn't know after 1H - 2C etc. the TD has to consider adjudication. How to adjust? I tend to average-plus for both sides, am willing to accept average/average plus and don't agree with average-minus/average-plus. Giving an asigned adjusted score is possible but not obvious. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Mar 31 22:21:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VCINC01520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:18:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2VCI9H01489 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:18:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 609 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2002 12:07:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c1) (217.129.63.158) by front1.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 31 Mar 2002 12:07:03 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , "'bridge-laws'" Cc: "'William Schoder'" , "'Max Bavin'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:07:05 +0100 Message-ID: <000101c1d8ac$9322f200$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000401c1d8a0$cd21dcc0$db40e150@dodona> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g2VCIDH01498 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Grattan Endicott Sent: domingo, 31 de Março de 2002 9:55 To: bridge-laws Cc: William Schoder; Max Bavin Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Grattan Endicott; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:18:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3076.bb.online.no [80.212.220.4]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA22377 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:07:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008d01c1d8ac$a4721900$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CEB6.8CC7B6CA@t-online.de> <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6E5BE.9090903@village.uunet.be> <007701c1d8a4$ca48f660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6F457.2000301@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:07:34 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 means that there will be some UI, and if L16 would remain in > >>force, there would be no possibility of normal bidding. > >> > > > > There may be some UI, but not neccessarily. > > The UI from the 2H insufficient bid in the sequence: > > 1H - 2S - 2H* corrected to 3H > > is negligible if at all existing. > > > > > I would not say negligible - not for L16 purposes. This is certainly > one reason why L16 was sustituted with L21B1b. > Accepted as a possibility > > > > >> So the Lawmakers abolished L16 in this case. > >> > > > > But they also inserted L27B1(b) which carries much of the same > > principles as the abolished L16C2 > > > > > No it does not - certainly not. > L16 says that a player may not use, if a logical alternative exists. > L21B1b says nothing of the sort. As long as opponents are not > damaged, partner is allowed to use the "U"I. > Accepted again > > > > >>And in order to not have players make lots of unpunished underbids, > >>they introduced a new law - preventing the use of "extra" information. > >>It was never their intention that the substitute bid should be > >>comprehended in the system, which is why they made the first bid AI > >>after all. > >> > > > > This is definitely not the interpretation given in any of the comments I > > have seen on laws before the 1997 laws, and there was nothing I can > > remember from the introduction of the 1997 laws indicating that the > > law committee intended a change along such lines. > > > > > Well, I certainly remember examples in which the player was allowed to > use the UI. I distinctly remember examples before 1997 where the > higher bid was a transfer and we were taught to say, "yes you are > entitled to know that's not a transfer". That example has gone now, > of course, but it did exist back then. Before 1997 the insufficient bid had to be incontrovertibly not conventional for Law 27B1(a) to be applicable, but the replacement bid did not. However, it was the official interpretation that regardless what the replacement bid would be according to the bidding system (conventional or not) it was to be interpreted as a non-conventional bid in this situation (Endicott & Hansen Commentary 27.5 - to the 1987 laws) Before 1987 there was no condition that either bid should be not conventional for Law 27B1 to be applicable, but there was still the clause to be interpreted that if the two bids were significantly different in the information they conveyed, the director "could" assign an adjusted score. (Hansen Commentary 27.3 - to the Danish laws as of 1981) ..... > >>But we cannot shortcut this decision by the manner you suggest - that > >>West should interpret East's 2He as 6-9HCP. > >> > >>That is simply not true. > >> > > > > Your opinion? Or official opinion by the WBFLC (or whoever)? > > > > > Well, it seems a widely held opinion. > I am in no position to give official opinions. > And I do hope you understand what I am saying : I have not yet formed > a definite opinion on the case at hand, just at your insistence that > it is impossible to change 1He to 2He and partner knowing there are > opening values. It is not UI (we know that) and there is no reason to > apply L21B1b as if it is - on no other basis than that 2He ought to > show 6-9 and he has told partner he has 13+. > > Well, I have posted a question (or actually two questions) to which I have a hope that Grattan might come up with statement(s) that will clarify the issue. 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 Mar 31 22:49:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VCivb04528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:44:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VCikH04509 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:44:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3076.bb.online.no [80.212.220.4]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA11443 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:33:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009c01c1d8b0$52517b80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <004f01c1d8aa$2cb23140$9bdff1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:33:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Ton Kooijman" Last week in my club: I had QJ6 A87 A5 AKQ107 and opened 2NT, my partner responded 4NT which according to our system shows a good hand with 5 spades and 4 hearts. His proposal a couple of months ago, without any discussion. I don't like it but never objected so we play it.Opponents asked and I explained. I didn't know what to do so I bid 6S (probably wrong we played top-bottom). Now my partner bid 6NT which I made. He had K73 KQ5 QJ73 852 DK was on side and clubs where 4 -1 in the right hand. He had forgotten the convention and made a quantitative raise (that is how we call it in Dutch). Question: do you allow 6NT? Tell me before Thursday. We didn't even call the TD, but I am less certain at the moment. Should he read my hand as AQxxxx Ax Kx AKx or something similar? Isn't 6NT the better contract anyway, though he hasn't any fork? Any difference between teams and top-bottom? Now I know that I should have protected our side by bidding 6NT myself. We don't play this convention anymore. (I don't know what happened to the ">"-markers that should identify your post in my answer, but here we go:) You ask my opinion on a clear-cut Law 16 case, and my first reaction is: Your partner chose a bid not in accordance with your system, fine - that is his privilege. Your explanation to opponents most likely woke him up, not so fine. Did he correct the final contract because of having been awoken? That would not be acceptable. Would he excuse himself and claim he became aware of his misbid on his own account? That would not be acceptable either, he would be held to claiming that after hearing your explanation to opponents, regardless what was the real truth. So: Does your system allow a 2NT opening with a decent 6card suit in spades? (Mine does not, i would have opened in 2C) I think your partner should not be held to believeing that being the case. Then where are the values making 6S a better contract than 6NT? I see none whatsoever. My final verdict: You had a silly convention (which you already have abandoned), there are better ways to find major fits after 2NT opening bids. Would I have allowed the 6NT bid? I don't know. Too much depends upon the impression I would have got at the scene. Is 6NT a sound contract? Just about - it has slightly less than 50% chance. I think the bidding should go 1NT - 4NT - and then 6NT if you are not pessimistic at the time. (Yes we call it quantitative raise in Norway 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 Sun Mar 31 23:44:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VDelq11852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:40:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VDeYH11812 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:40:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.178]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTU00EHTATBOG@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:29:39 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:27:47 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Matthias Berghaus Cc: ayala hiler , Mark Horton , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004601c1d8b7$ec9224e0$b24f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> <003b01c1d7f1$c382bd60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA5F396.F552CA2D@t-online.de> <00ae01c1d813$5c26a7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA62D90.DEB372FE@t-online.de> <015101c1d83f$d34d91e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CCF3.FA1173F3@t-online.de> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "What choices does E have" Maybe you should ask yoursef. What choices should he have after he by *his own fault*transferred information that he has a 1H opening bid.? [BTW what choices does he have if for instance he accidentally* drops an Honour during the auction} I won't try 'sophisticated' bidding sentences [in these Mr.Kaplan excelled] I won't 'threaten' to appeal [for me the ruling of the TD is and should be final]. I admit I may be wrong ,so all I ask Mr. Berghaus let's try to deal with the situation as best as we can, in good faith trying to do justice as far as we are allowed by the Laws of the game. You are called to the table you see W-1H - P- 1H D!! E tells you I haven't seen my pard's bid so I opened 1H [ thanks God there are such bridge players] so it's up to you. You don't have the book ,and you [the players] want justice. E gave information that he has an opening bid ,and you are about to tell him to use the bid that will give his partner the same information , but alas you now remember the 'good book' tells you his pard. will have to pass .After all you are here not to tell him what to do but rather what he is not allowed to do. So you tell him ,you can bid whatever you want but unless you bid 2 H your pard. will have to pass, but if you bid 2 H your pard. is not allowed to use the information he got from your illegal bid. Now somebody brings the book and you see in brackets that in this * case the *unlawful* information *is lawful* but before you give them the good news,you decide to make sure,and have another look ,and you see that in these very same brackets you are *told* to look at 27 B1[b].If you have stuck with me till now,have another look and decide for yourself. As for me I hope the Law makers intention was that in case they overlooked something they gave the referee the right to use his judgement. As far as I am concerned I feel relieved that I can do justice and I warn E that if he bids 2H and his pard. acts and I am called back by N/S I may have to award an AS. In this case E/W are lucky E should bid 4H and their score will probably depend-on how well W plays his hand. Best regards Israel --- Original Message ----- From: "Matthias Berghaus" To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > Sven Pran schrieb: > > > > > > Let`s have an example close to the actual one. In order to understand > > > the 4H bid one has to assume (if we disregard the possibility of actual > > > agreements in this situation [which I believe to be illegal]) that the > > > 4H bidder understood this as principle of fast arrival situation. So 3H > > > would (if both players think along the same lines [this appears to be > > > the case as 4H was passed out]) be forcing with slam interest. By > > > inference a bid of (for example) 4C would be a cue-bid (or an asking bid > > > or whatever), a bid that is systemically impossible (with this meaning). > > > Remember, the OS has no agreements in place (which would possibly be > > > very specific) and have to fall back on general principles, which may be > > > just what the doctor ordered for this specific deal. Now they reach or > > > avoid some contract because of information or inferences which would > > > otherwise not be available. > > > > I have a strong feeling that you overlook one important fact: > > Attempting to interpret corrections by the offender to 3H or 4H is > > completely > > irrelevant. Because these alternative bids are not "the lowest sufficient > > bid" > > they result in the application of Law 27B2 with the result that offender's > > partner must pass for the remainder of the auction. Thus Law 27B1(b) will > > never be applicable in these cases. > > It is you who overlooks something, Sven: I am talking about West here. > The auction goes 1H-p-1H (insufficient and corrected to 2H)-p- and now > it is the opening bidder`s turn again. He is not barred from the > auction, since partner corrected his insufficient bid to the lowest of > the same denomination, and both are not conventional. > > > The only relevant example is in this case a correction to 2H and the > > interpretation of that bid versus the interpretation of the original > > insufficient > > bid. > > > > Back to square one. > > That`s the square I`m on, see above. > > > > > > > Another example may be a marginal balanced hand which would only invite > > > game, despite it being a systemic opening bid. Now partner bids game > > > (why, he has an opening bid, hasn`t he?) while he would probably (or > > > even only possibly) reject an invitation. > > > > > > I don`t claim that there are an endless number of example hands, but IMO > > > there are more types of auctions where I would adjust the score than > > > there are types where you wouldn`t. In fact - besides the trivial cases > > > - I can`t come up with an example of a hand where I believe you wouldn`t > > > adjust. Maybe I`m wrong. Convince me. > > > > After an insufficient bid which is incontrovertibly not conventional, and > > which > > is replaced with the lowest sufficient bid with the same denomination, also > > incontrovertibly not conventional, I would let the auction proceed with no > > immediate interference. But if the insufficient bid conveyed an information > > essentially different from the information conveyed by the replacement bid > > as it should be interpreted given no preceeding insufficient bid; and if I > > judged that the information from the insufficient bid (only) could have been > > a base for the choice of calls made by the offender's partner to the degree > > that the offending side obtained a better result on the board than they > > could > > reasonably have expected had there been no infraction, and with the offender > > still making the same bid as to which he corrected the insufficient bid > > (puh!): > > Then, yes - I would assign an adjusted score. Period. > > I have given you an example where I would adjust the score after the > bidding in question, others have done so too. I still haven`t seen an > example where you wouldn`t adjust the score in a situation like the one > we discuss here, except the trivial one where East wanted to bid 2H all > the time. With your way of applying the rules East has the following > choices ( if he "opened" 1H): > 1. Guess the right contract. > 2. Bid 2H and pray that partner is strong enough to act. Now he will > have to guess again, because he will have no way to show the hand he > actually holds. In all probability partner or the TD will hang him. > 3. Bid 2H and hope that partner doesn`t act and 4H does not make 10 > tricks by some chance. > > Good going. This are the choices you give East on a hand where he can > never beat the field because of 27B1b (well, almost never). > Why was Law 16C2 specifically suspended if you adjust the score > afterwards, regardless of what happened? What hand is East allowed to > have to not have his score adjusted? As far as I can see from your > arguments only 6-9 HCP and a fit, the "trivial" case. This is what the > wording in Law 27 is for? > > > Sven > > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/