From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 00:11:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VE7fw14738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:07:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout06.sul.t-online.com (mailout06.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VE7VH14715 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:07:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd07.sul.t-online.de by mailout06.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16rfp4-0001Hy-04; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:56:42 +0200 Received: from k5m1o8 (0867764189-0001@[80.128.145.116]) by fwd07.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16rfov-1y7uiGC; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:56:33 +0200 Message-ID: <001001c1d8bb$d0550000$5439fea9@k5m1o8> From: Harsanyi@t-online.de (Judit Harsanyi) To: Subject: Fw: [BLML] more than sufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:56:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1D8CC.937179A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Sender: 0867764189-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1D8CC.937179A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Judit Harsanyi=20 To: Ton Kooijman=20 Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid L16. A ... a reply to a question .. ....Opponents asked and I explained. ... He had forgotten the convention =20 ** and you reminded with your answer your pd **=20 Question: do you allow 6NT?=20 **Surely not on IMP tournament, depending on the level of OS at other = cases ** ... Should he read my hand as AQxxxx Ax Kx AKx or something similar? =20 ** ?? a first class 6NT hand.** Isn't 6NT the better contract anyway, though he hasn't any fork?=20 ** Not allways! 6NT bid on 6s is not a success if f.e. pd opened = AJ109x AJx AKx Ax naturally with c-opening lead and loosing to sQ.** Any difference between teams and top-bottom? =20 **Yes, at team there is no reason to fight for an extra 10 point in = NT, but at top-bottom (perhaps) the other contestants will take also the = risk to bid 6Nt .** Now I know that I should have protected our side by bidding 6NT = myself. **You could dot it, but if your pd has: K10987 KQxx Qx Jx - after an = unlucky d-opening lead you would prefer the 6S contract ** We don't play this convention anymore.=20 **Why not? You did JUST NOW learned this conv! :)** Happy Eastern =20 Josef ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1D8CC.937179A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Judit=20 Harsanyi
To: Ton Kooijman
Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid

L16. A  ... a reply to a question=20 ..
....Opponents asked and = I=20 explained. ...
He had forgotten the=20 convention 
** and you reminded = with your=20 answer your pd **
 Question: do you = allow 6NT?=20
**Surely not on IMP tournament, = depending on the=20 level of OS at other cases **
... Should he read my = hand as=20 AQxxxx Ax Kx AKx or something similar? 
** ?? a first class 6NT = hand.**
Isn't 6NT the better = contract=20 anyway, though he hasn't any fork?
** Not allways! 6NT bid = on 6s is=20 not a success if  f.e. pd opened AJ109x AJx AKx Ax  = naturally=20 with c-opening lead and loosing to sQ.**
 
Any difference between = teams and=20 top-bottom? 
**Yes, at team there is no reason to = fight for=20 an extra 10 point in NT, but at top-bottom (perhaps) the other = contestants=20 will take also the risk to bid 6Nt .**
Now I know that I should have protected our side = by bidding=20 6NT myself.
**You could dot it, but if your pd has: K10987 = KQxx Qx Jx -=20 after an unlucky d-opening lead you would prefer the 6S contract=20 **
We don't play this convention anymore. =
**Why not? You did JUST NOW learned this conv!=20 :)**
Happy Eastern   
Josef
 
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C1D8CC.937179A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 00:32:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VETN917606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:29:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VET2H17572 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:29:03 +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 16rg9n-0002mb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:18:07 +0100 Received: from modem-93.clown-sweetlips.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.248.93] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rg9l-0000ja-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:18:06 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA13705; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:21:25 +0100 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: <200203301910.OAA24264@cfa183.harvard.edu> <012601c1d83c$254375e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 31 Mar 2002 15:16:46 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Sven Pran"'s message of "Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:42:17 +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: 64 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Sven Pran" writes: > From: "Steve Willner" > ..... ... > > (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. I thought the whole point of Law 72B1 was to avoid having to judge intent. But never mind, that's a side issue. > > 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". There are clear guidelines (in the WBF CoP) for how "damage" should be assessed. Your view is that in the case of L27B1(b) we should set this aside and do it differently. Why? Where in law or regulation is the justification for doing so? > > 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. Like Steve, I thought that the 4H bid was clearly illegal until I looked at the laws. But having read the laws, I see I was wrong. The laws are not unclear: what you would like is not a clarification of the laws, it is a change. Fair enough, I don't have any particular objection to the change you would like to see. 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 Mon Apr 1 00:32:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VETNw17607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:29:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VET2H17571 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:29:03 +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 16rg9s-0002mz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:18:12 +0100 Received: from modem-93.clown-sweetlips.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.248.93] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rg9q-0000jq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:18:11 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA13704; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:21:24 +0100 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: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 31 Mar 2002 14:52:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Sven Pran"'s message of "Sat, 30 Mar 2002 19:30:51 +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: 79 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Sven Pran" writes: > 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) Several people have given examples by now. But you're asking the wrong question. Nobody is saying that the information from the insufficient 1H bid is not significant enough to trigger Law 27B1(b). We are saying that there is no damage, so Law 27B1(b) does not apply. If there had been damage, caused by the information conveyed by the insufficient bid, then Law 27B1(b) would require an adjusted score, however large or small the amount of information. 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 Mon Apr 1 00:47:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VEicU19645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:44:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VEiRH19625 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:44:28 +1000 (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 16rgOr-0006Ez-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:33:41 +0100 Received: from modem-204.massachusetts.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.72.204] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rgOp-0001Oe-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:33:40 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA13845; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:36:59 +0100 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> <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> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 31 Mar 2002 15:30:54 +0100 In-Reply-To: "Sven Pran"'s message of "Sun, 31 Mar 2002 13:11:21 +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: 39 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Sven Pran" writes: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > 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) I don't think anybody disagrees. But as well as the information we need the damage. When you have described the authoritative examples that you have seen, you have talked about the kind of information given by the insufficient bid in these examples, comparing it with the information in David's original example. But (apologies if I've just missed it), I don't think you've described the *damage* in these examples. 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 Mon Apr 1 01:00:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VEv4Q21038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:57:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 g2VEupH21014 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:56:52 +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 g2VEk4o03803; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:46:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:32:35 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <3CA6E5BE.9090903@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: <20020331094605-R01050000-1E642C80-448C-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 12:32 PM, hermandw@village.uunet.be (Herman De Wael) wrote: > 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" I'll be damned. I agree with Herman. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 01:00:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VEv3D21034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:57:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VEunH21010 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:56:50 +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 g2VEk1o03770; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:46:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:28:37 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020331094601-R01050000-1C01D280-448C-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 11:49 AM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > 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). What penalty? 27B1(a) doesn't say anything about a penalty. In fact, the heading on that section is "No Penalty"! "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. " > 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. That's your interpretation which, as someone else pointed out, you're using to justify your interpretation. > 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). If L27B2(b) were redundant, the lawmakers would not have excluded 16C2, and thus 27B2(b) would not exist. The function of Law 16C2, it seems to me, is to preclude OS from taking advantage of information from its or opponents' withdrawn actions. That informations, says Law 16C2, is unauthorized. But Law 27B1(a) provides an exception: the information, say that law, is authorized. However, there is a chance, says 27B1(b), that the *AI* conveyed may damage the NOS. In that case, then, the function of 27B1(b) is to ensure that OS do not benefit. Earlier in this thread, somebody proposed an example where OS get to a making slam they would not have found absent the IB. I think that's a perfect example of when to apply 27B1(b). I do *not* see how the AI damages NOS in the given case, since absent the IB OS would almost certainly have arrived at game. > 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. Will it? The pair are on unfamiliar ground. All West knows is that East has some hand with which he wants to give West the opportunity to bid on. Otherwise, East would presumably have bid something else (4H, for example). Now West has to describe his hand as best he may. Given he has a minimum opener, it seems the best description is to jump to game (principle of fast arrival). If East has some hand which isn't interested in game, or in hearts, then they're in trouble, but hopefully (I would be thinking, if I were West) East has some interest in a heart game, at least, since otherwise he could bid whatever he thought he could make opposite a minimum opener (which would lose if West has more than a minimum, but that, as you say, is the "penalty" of the IB). Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 01:00:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VEuxi21028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:56:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 g2VEujH20995 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:56:46 +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 g2VEjvo03716; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:45:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:38:12 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Ton Kooijman , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <003c01c1d8a4$565c24c0$9bdff1c3@tkooij> Message-ID: <20020331094558-R01050000-1A380F00-448C-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 1:06 PM, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl (Ton Kooijman) wrote: > 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. I thought the principle was that if a result has been obtained at the table, you *must* award an assigned adjusted score, that an artificial adjusted score is illegal. Mike Flader, in his "Ruling the Game" column in the April ACBL _Bulletin_, suggests that it's okay to award an artificial score even when a result has been obtained. I was about to write to him and take him to task about that. Should I not? :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 01:29:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VFPs224522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 01:25:54 +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 (mailout6-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.125]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VFPjH24502 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 01:25:45 +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 g2VFEwo24001; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:14:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 09:46:48 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Rui Marques , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020331101459-R01050000-27EF9380-4490-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 3/31/02 at 1:04 PM, rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) wrote: > If openerīs 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 (?) It seemed to me responder's comments here are extraneous, and UI under L16A. So we apply that law. But that has nothing to do with L27. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 02:23:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VGK3U28921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:20:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VGJrH28902 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:19:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.187]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTU00F0QI6Y96@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:09:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:07:40 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Jeremy Rickard Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@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: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The first thing you have to decide is ,should you warn E before he corrects to 2H. Had the TD done that there wouldn't have been any problem. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeremy Rickard" To: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > "Sven Pran" writes: > > > 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) > > Several people have given examples by now. But you're asking the wrong > question. > > Nobody is saying that the information from the insufficient 1H bid is > not significant enough to trigger Law 27B1(b). We are saying that > there is no damage, so Law 27B1(b) does not apply. > > If there had been damage, caused by the information conveyed by the > insufficient bid, then Law 27B1(b) would require an adjusted score, > however large or small the amount of information. > > 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 Mon Apr 1 02:23:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VGLKM29104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:21:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front1.netvisao.pt ([213.228.128.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g2VGLBH29090 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:21:11 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 29603 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2002 16:10:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO c1) (217.129.63.158) by front1.netvisao.pt with SMTP; 31 Mar 2002 16:10:22 -0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "'Ed Reppert'" , "'Bridge Laws'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 17:10:22 +0100 Message-ID: <011401c0b9fd$17353000$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 In-Reply-To: <20020331101459-R01050000-27EF9380-4490-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> 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 g2VGLDH29094 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 Ed Reppert Sent: domingo, 31 de Marįo de 2002 15:47 To: Rui Marques; Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid On 3/31/02 at 1:04 PM, rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) wrote: > If openerīs 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 (?) It seemed to me responder's comments here are extraneous, and UI under L16A. So we apply that law. But that has nothing to do with L27. Regards, Ed ----------- Precisely. And I believe that much of the messages from this thread are boiling on this confusion. If there are no comments that make the Dealer aware of the reason for the insufficient bid, all is well and result stands. If such comments are made available wether by partner, of mistakenly by the TD, law 27 has nothing to do with that part... Whenever we say "insuf. 1H showing opening values" we should first know how does that information came to life. After we are satisfied that there is no UI, the problem will become "insuficient 1H" and not "insuf 1H showing opening values". -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 02:38:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VGaLV01317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:36:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VGaCH01301 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:36:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.179]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTU00FE8IY4AF@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:25:19 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:23:26 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003501c1d8d0$77ace020$bb4e003e@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: 8BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <20020331101459-R01050000-27EF9380-4490-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "SORRY I wanted to bid 2H" he just bids 2H and the bidding continues normally. No hay problemas. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Rui Marques" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 4:46 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 3/31/02 at 1:04 PM, rui.mlmarques@netvisao.pt (Rui Marques) wrote: > > > If openerīs 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 (?) > > It seemed to me responder's comments here are extraneous, and UI under L16A. So > we apply that law. But that has nothing to do with L27. > > 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 Mon Apr 1 02:55:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VGqNg03142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:52:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VGqDH03119 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 02:52:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.179]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTU00FNHJOTAF@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:41:20 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:39:59 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004c01c1d8d2$b4014b40$bb4e003e@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> <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$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6F457.2000301@village.uunet.be> <008d01c1d8ac$a4721900$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "As long as opp.aren't damaged,partner is allowed* to use the "U"I Why? Why*, Sven ?? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 2:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 04:26:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VIN5s16842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 04:23:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VIMsH16814 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 04:22:54 +1000 (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 <0GTU00F2PNVUOA@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:12:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:13:52 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000901c1d8df$5e4a0360$654e003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CEB6.8CC7B6CA@t-online.de> <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "So he can *either* show his hand and force his partner to pass for the rest of the auction [because of his UB] or make a bid *which doesn't* tell his partner the *correct* story of his hand (understatement of the year} [his partner already has the *correct* story] but hope that he will have a chance to still reach the best contract." YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Regards Israel----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 11:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 04:26:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VINAd16849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 04:23:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g2VIN0H16828 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 04:23:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.56.169] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rjo2-000CFH-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:11:56 +0100 Message-ID: <005901c1d8df$ab7717e0$5720e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" , "Olivier Beauvillain" , "Laws" References: <004701c1d8a6$0f817e40$9bdff1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 18:59:02 +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: "Olivier Beauvillain" ; Laws" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > 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 > +=+ "We were as twinn'd lambs that frisk i' the sun, And bleat the one at the other: what we changed Was innocence for innocence; we knew not The doctrine of ill-doing, no, nor dreamed That any did" Ah, such peace of mind...... ~ 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 Apr 1 04:44:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VIfVT19096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 04:41:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VIfMH19076 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 04:41:23 +1000 (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 g2VIUcm08819 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:30:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001201c1d8e2$204cd800$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004f01c1d8aa$2cb23140$9bdff1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 10:29:34 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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? mlf: Perhaps a more normal S-AQJ10x H- J10x D- AKx C-AJ Isn't 6NT the better contract anyway, though he hasn't any fork? mlf: Yes, probably, but passing 6S is a logical alternative. My example hand makes 6S, but not 6NT, with a club lead Any difference between teams and top-bottom? mlf: Not enough to change this ruling, considering those weak clubs. Can anyone tell me why Outlook Express occasionally refuses to insert the > sign for quoted material in a reply? The option is turned on. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 05:01:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VIwUA21336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 04:58:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VIwKH21308 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 04:58:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.84]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTU00FD5PJ0Q7@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:47:27 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:45:36 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Herman De Wael Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003e01c1d8e4$52993540$544c003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <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> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Why shouldn't the LC in their infinite wisdom through their members who are taking part in BLML explain their intentions .They are certainly more qualified to do it. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 12:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 05:26:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VJNJG24493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 05:23:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VJN9H24476 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 05:23:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.84]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTU00F6CQOEVG@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:12:16 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:10:57 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Grattan Endicott Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <005b01c1d8e7$ca4a5a80$544c003e@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: <004701c1d8a6$0f817e40$9bdff1c3@tkooij> <005901c1d8df$ab7717e0$5720e150@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ton Kooijman" ; "Olivier Beauvillain" ; "Laws" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 7:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Quidquid agas, prudenter agas, et respice finem. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ton Kooijman" > To: "Olivier Beauvillain" ; > Laws" > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 12:20 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > For the peace of mind of many .will you please spell out in simple English ,what gives you " Ah such peace of mind...." Israel Erdenbaum > > > > > > Vive La France, > > Belle Paque Olivier, > > > > ton > > > +=+ > "We were as twinn'd lambs that frisk i' the sun, > And bleat the one at the other: what we changed > Was innocence for innocence; we knew not > The doctrine of ill-doing, no, nor dreamed > That any did" > Ah, such peace of mind...... ~ G ~ +=+ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 05:29:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VJQqc24960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 05:26:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VJQhH24942 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 05:26:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA00443 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:15:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000b01c1d8e8$79936680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$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> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:15:52 +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: "Jeremy Rickard" > > 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) > > I don't think anybody disagrees. But as well as the information we > need the damage. > > When you have described the authoritative examples that you have seen, > you have talked about the kind of information given by the > insufficient bid in these examples, comparing it with the information > in David's original example. But (apologies if I've just missed it), I > don't think you've described the *damage* in these examples. I thought that was evident from my quotations, but anyway: West - East 1H - 1H* changed to 2H Comment: TD shall request West from here on to bid as if East has shown Heart support with 6 to 9 HCP. Do you need more to see that the "damage" is the difference between game and 2H ten tricks if West has a minimum hand? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 05:55:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VJqBE29185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 05:52:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VJq2H29160 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 05:52:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA21696; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:41:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001101c1d8ec$02181a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020331094601-R01050000-1C01D280-448C-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:41:09 +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: "Ed Reppert" > > 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). > > What penalty? 27B1(a) doesn't say anything about a penalty. In fact, the heading > on that section is "No Penalty"! "The Laws are primarily designed not as > punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. " I wrote "penalty alternatives". The absolute condition for "no penalty" under Law 27B1 is that Offender changes his bid to ........, and even then there are cases where TD shall assign an adjusted score. OK, I would probably have been syntactically more correct if I instead of "penalty under L27B1(a)" had written "condition under L27B1(a)", but I trust my meaning was equally clear the way I wrote? > > > 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. > > That's your interpretation which, as someone else pointed out, you're using to > justify your interpretation. Not only mine, I have quoted both Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen, both which I trust are respected authorities in these matters? > > > 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). > > If L27B2(b) were redundant, the lawmakers would not have excluded 16C2, and thus > 27B2(b) would not exist. > > > The function of Law 16C2, it seems to me, is to preclude OS from taking > advantage of information from its or opponents' withdrawn actions. That > informations, says Law 16C2, is unauthorized. But Law 27B1(a) provides an > exception: the information, say that law, is authorized. However, there is a > chance, says 27B1(b), that the *AI* conveyed may damage the NOS. In that case, > then, the function of 27B1(b) is to ensure that OS do not benefit. Earlier in > this thread, somebody proposed an example where OS get to a making slam they > would not have found absent the IB. I think that's a perfect example of when to > apply 27B1(b). I do *not* see how the AI damages NOS in the given case, since > absent the IB OS would almost certainly have arrived at game. That example, if we refer to the same, was assuming a bidding system with no possibility for opener's partner to show a hand which justified an opening bid in the same denomination as the opener's bid. I have yet to see such a system. > > > 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. > > Will it? The pair are on unfamiliar ground. All West knows is that East has some > hand with which he wants to give West the opportunity to bid on. Otherwise, East > would presumably have bid something else (4H, for example). Now West has to > describe his hand as best he may. Given he has a minimum opener, it seems the > best description is to jump to game (principle of fast arrival). If East has > some hand which isn't interested in game, or in hearts, then they're in trouble, > but hopefully (I would be thinking, if I were West) East has some interest in a > heart game, at least, since otherwise he could bid whatever he thought he could > make opposite a minimum opener (which would lose if West has more than a > minimum, but that, as you say, is the "penalty" of the IB). You can't be serious. East has shown that he has an opening hand. If West uses this information he is subject to an action under law27B1(b). If you argue no to this, and also argue that all information from the insufficient bid is available to West then why on earth would the lawmakers request East to just repeat the bid as the lowest bid with the same denomination? What "damage" would there be to opponents if East simply were allowed to replace his insufficient bid with any bid he wanted, and no penalty, permitting the pair to reach the contract which everybody else had reached? East would then instead of "opening the auction" change his insufficient bid to what bid best describing his hand, the auction would continue with no problem and they would (hopefully) land in the "correct" contract. No damage to anybody!(???) Except: That is not 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 Mon Apr 1 06:02:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VJxMx00104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 05:59:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VJxCH00079 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 05:59:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA03508; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:47:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001701c1d8ec$f07eae40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Ton Kooijman" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020331094558-R01050000-1A380F00-448C-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:47:49 +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: "Ed Reppert" > I thought the principle was that if a result has been obtained at the table, you > *must* award an assigned adjusted score, that an artificial adjusted score is > illegal. > > Mike Flader, in his "Ruling the Game" column in the April ACBL _Bulletin_, > suggests that it's okay to award an artificial score even when a result has been > obtained. I was about to write to him and take him to task about that. Should I > not? :-) There are two situations where a result obtained on a board should be replaced by an artificial adjusted score: 1: When due to some irregularity the obtained score does not relate to the board as it should have been (for instance if the board is not identical to the "same" board as played by other contestants or if some event has made it impossible to play the board in a comparable way) 2: When for some reason the board has not been played at any other 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 Mon Apr 1 06:04:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VK1nl00395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:01:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VK1eH00380 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:01:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA18680; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:50:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002701c1d8ed$59a63c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , , "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" References: <20020331101459-R01050000-27EF9380-4490-11D6-964E-3DADB19B028A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <003501c1d8d0$77ace020$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:50:46 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > "SORRY I wanted to bid 2H" he just > bids 2H and the bidding continues normally. No hay problemas. > Best regards > Israel Erdenbaum That seems to make it a Law 25A case, and yes no problems. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 06:26:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VKNNL02965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:23:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VKNEH02946 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:23:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA09506 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:12:24 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003101c1d8f0$5f947500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$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$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6F457.2000301@village.uunet.be> <008d01c1d8ac$a4721900$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <004c01c1d8d2$b4014b40$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:12:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > "As long as opp.aren't damaged,partner is allowed* to use the "U"I Why? > Why*, Sven ?? Only on very special conditions outlined in Law 27B1! Because that is the best way to save the board with a minimum distortion (and I agree with the LC on that view). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 06:29:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VKQuw03493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:26:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail46.fg.online.no (mail46-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VKQkH03466 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:26:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA08361 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:15:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003901c1d8f0$dd10c920$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$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> <000901c1d8df$5e4a0360$654e003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:15:55 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" > "So he can *either* show his hand and force his partner to pass for the rest > of the auction [because of his UB] or make a bid *which doesn't* tell his > partner the *correct* > story of his hand (understatement of the year} [his partner already has the > *correct* story] > but hope that he will have a chance to still reach the best contract." > YOU MUST BE KIDDING. > Regards No, I am not although it looks that way. But that is the very problem an offender has after making an insufficient bid. In many cases he has only one real alternative and that is to guess the contract in which to play and bid that one directly. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 06:34:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VKVGn04059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:31:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VKV6H04032 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:31:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA14512 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:20:17 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004701c1d8f1$7906eee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <004f01c1d8aa$2cb23140$9bdff1c3@tkooij> <001201c1d8e2$204cd800$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:20:16 +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 > Can anyone tell me why Outlook Express occasionally refuses to insert the > > sign for quoted material in a reply? The option is turned on. I have had no problem with my answers to most posters, I had that problem with my answer to your previous post, but as you may see this time it worked fine here. I have made no change in my OE, did you change anything from when you posted the first time that I answered and this time? regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 06:47:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VKiQP06119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:44:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VKiHH06090 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 06:44:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA12503; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:33:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008301c1d8f3$4eca0700$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <004f01c1d8aa$2cb23140$9bdff1c3@tkooij> <001201c1d8e2$204cd800$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:33:24 +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: "Marvin L. French" > Can anyone tell me why Outlook Express occasionally refuses to insert the > > sign for quoted material in a reply? The option is turned on. > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California. I posted an answer in mistake, and I think I am on the track: Check "properties" on the message to which your answers do not insert the ">" markers. When I did that on the message I received from "Ton" the "content-type" (available through "details") is shown as "multi-part" with some more information. When I check the properties on all messages that act "normally" I find various other types. My best guess is that "our" problem is associated with how "Ton" generates his messages. 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 Apr 1 07:26:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VLNQh11798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:23:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout06.sul.t-online.com (mailout06.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VLNHH11771 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:23:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd08.sul.t-online.de by mailout06.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16rmQq-0005U0-03; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:00:08 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[80.135.150.12]) by fwd08.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16rmQg-20tEBMC; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:59:58 +0200 Message-ID: <3CA778C9.945E618F@t-online.de> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:59:53 +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] more than sufficient bid References: <004f01c1d8aa$2cb23140$9bdff1c3@tkooij> <001201c1d8e2$204cd800$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004701c1d8f1$7906eee0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Can anyone tell me why Outlook Express occasionally refuses to insert the > > > > sign for quoted material in a reply? The option is turned on. > Probably because it was HTML. This sometimes acts funny. Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 07:29:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VLQr112452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:26:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout06.sul.t-online.com (mailout06.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VLQjH12431 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:26:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from fwd08.sul.t-online.de by mailout06.sul.t-online.com with smtp id 16rmNe-0005U0-01; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:56:50 +0200 Received: from t-online.de (520043969553-0001@[80.135.150.12]) by fwd08.sul.t-online.com with esmtp id 16rmNY-1UI6iGC; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:56:44 +0200 Message-ID: <3CA77807.27DE5327@t-online.de> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:56:39 +0200 From: ziffbridge@t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [de]C-CCK-MCD DT (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CEB6.8CC7B6CA@t-online.de> <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6E5BE.9090903@village.uunet.be> <007701c1d8a4$ca48f660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000b01c1d8e8$79936680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Sender: 520043969553-0001@t-dialin.net Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran schrieb: > > I thought that was evident from my quotations, but anyway: > > West - East > 1H - 1H* changed to 2H > > Comment: TD shall request West from here on to bid > as if East has shown Heart support with 6 to 9 HCP. > > Do you need more to see that the "damage" is the difference > between game and 2H ten tricks if West has a minimum hand? > > Sven > I give up. Law 27 specifically suspends Law 16. You insist on using Law 16. Everybody plays 4H. You insist N/S were damaged. Next time you will insist on using the law as written again. If you change your views on the laws to support your opinion on specific cases you can prove anything you like. Matthias -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 07:48:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VLjar12636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:45:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail47.fg.online.no (mail47-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g2VLjRH12632 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:45:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA10671; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:34:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008f01c1d8fb$d87c4be0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Matthias Berghaus" , "BLML" References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$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> <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6E5BE.9090903@village.uunet.be> <007701c1d8a4$ca48f660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000b01c1d8e8$79936680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA77807.27DE5327@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:34:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > > > I thought that was evident from my quotations, but anyway: > > > > West - East > > 1H - 1H* changed to 2H > > > > Comment: TD shall request West from here on to bid > > as if East has shown Heart support with 6 to 9 HCP. > > > > Do you need more to see that the "damage" is the difference > > between game and 2H ten tricks if West has a minimum hand? > > > > Sven > > > I give up. Law 27 specifically suspends Law 16. You insist on using Law > 16. Everybody plays 4H. You insist N/S were damaged. Next time you will > insist on using the law as written again. If you change your views on > the laws to support your opinion on specific cases you can prove > anything you like. No, I insist on using Law 27B1(b) when applicable and I quote from commentaries written by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen, both whom I consider fairly authoritative and competent. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 08:02:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VLxOv14194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:59:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VLxGH14180 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:59:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16rnBf-0007Aw-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:48:31 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020331163802.00b97870@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:50:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <000f01c1d7b4$f25dc040$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:34 AM 3/30/02, Sven wrote: >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. On an entirely different deal with the same 1H-P-1H start... Over the 2H correction, with the fact that responder has an opening hand AI to opener, opener bids 2S and responder raises to 3S. With a secondary fit established opener chooses to cuebid below game on marginal values, responder cues back, slam is reached, and it makes. E-W have had, in effect, an auction on which responder raised opener's 1H bid to 2H forcing to game. Without the insufficient bid, responder would have had to bid something more, leaving less room to explore for slam below game. The TD decides that the slam might not have been bid without the advantage afforded by the insufficient bid, and reverses the score under L27B1(b). Is that an example we can 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 Mon Apr 1 08:35:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VMVr420193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:31:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VMVhH20164 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:31:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0398.bb.online.no [80.212.209.142]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA14517 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:20:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009701c1d902$523ee4a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020331163802.00b97870@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 00:20:52 +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: "Eric Landau" > >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. > > On an entirely different deal with the same 1H-P-1H start... > > Over the 2H correction, with the fact that responder has an opening > hand AI to opener, opener bids 2S and responder raises to 3S. With a > secondary fit established opener chooses to cuebid below game on > marginal values, responder cues back, slam is reached, and it makes. > > E-W have had, in effect, an auction on which responder raised opener's > 1H bid to 2H forcing to game. Without the insufficient bid, responder > would have had to bid something more, leaving less room to explore for > slam below game. The TD decides that the slam might not have been bid > without the advantage afforded by the insufficient bid, and reverses > the score under L27B1(b). > > Is that an example we can use? A much better attempt - yes. But I am really surprised if their system really does not let them find this slam without the insufficient bid? Sounds to me as a very inefficient system. However, the information is not sufficient for me to point out any obvious alternative bid sequence. What about something like: 1H - 2NT (Stenberg) 3S (additional values and a spade side suit) Now the path towards slam should be as easy as in the example. Actually almost any demand call can be used in place of Stenberg, the clue is the opener's second bid which should describe his hand pretty well for the responder, both strength and distribution. Generally I fancy the responder taking command after establishing the quality of the opening hand, and after openers second bid the responder should normally have a very good idea of where to be heading. But - I think also this example is too artistic for being the reason behind the current law 27B1(b). After all I know comments given by authorities to this law over the last 20 years, and my impression of these comments is that they have the same interpretation of Law27B1(b) as I try to convey. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 08:50:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VMlsH22898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:47:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VMlkH22880 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:47:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16rnwb-0003xY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:37:01 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020331172746.00a97f00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:38:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <3CA5BCDE.1050104@village.uunet.be> References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002301c1d7e8$7f3d68c0$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 08:25 AM 3/30/02, Herman wrote: >Sven Pran wrote: > >>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. That's a fine semantic distinction, and not necessary here. Any adjustment is completely out of order because there's nothing that could possibly allow one. This cases comes under L27B2, which has no analog to L27B1(b), which, of course, applies only when we rule under L27B1. Whether you say that the infraction caused damaged or not, L72A5 precludes any adjustment. Sven's analogy was offered in the context of a discussion of L27B1; I confess I don't see why he thinks it has any bearing on that discussion. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 09:04:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g2VN1LX24372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:01:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g2VN1CH24358 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:01:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16ro9c-0005N5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:50:28 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020331174908.00b99b90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 17:52:08 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <00fb01c1d81c$63a92d40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$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> 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 3/30/02, Sven wrote: >So I cannot unconditionally agree that they will bid the slam if >and only if they include an insufficient bid in the sequence. That overlooks the fact that the TD gives the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. It is far from necessary to "unconditionally agree that they will bid the slam if and only if they include an insuffient bid"; it is merely necessary to agree that they might not have bid the slam had they not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 11:28:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g311P6513471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:25:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g311OlH13428 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:24:48 +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 g311E0M20782; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:14:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:13:21 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020331163802.00b97870@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <20020331201400-R01050000-D670F401-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-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 4:50 PM, ehaa@starpower.net (Eric Landau) wrote: > Is that an example we can use? Works for me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 11:28:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g311PCL13480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:25:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g311OqH13441 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:24:53 +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 g311E4M20872; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:14:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:53:09 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Israel Erdnbaum , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020331201405-R01050000-D96BE480-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-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 6:23 PM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > "SORRY I wanted to bid 2H" he just > bids 2H and the bidding continues normally. No hay problemas. Um. If after the IB, East has a legitimate opportunity to keep the bidding open by bidding 2H when all four players at the table know (and are allowed to know) that it can't be limited to 6-9 HCP, then the extraneous comment, which is UI under 16A, conveys information which West is not allowed to use. Therefore, if he passes, and doing something else is an LA in the circumstances, and there's damage, the score should be adjusted. But the answer to this question depends on the answer to the question what West is allowed to do absent the comment, and we haven't resolved that one, yet. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 11:28:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g311PAl13478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:25:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g311OoH13437 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:24:51 +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 g311E3M20843; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:14:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:03:57 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000b01c1d8e8$79936680$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020331201403-R01050000-D83AB780-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-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 9:15 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > From: "Jeremy Rickard" > > > I don't think anybody disagrees. But as well as the information we > > need the damage. > > [snip] > > But (apologies if I've just missed it), I don't think you've > > described the *damage* in these examples. > > I thought that was evident from my quotations, but anyway: > > West - East > 1H - 1H* changed to 2H > > Comment: TD shall request West from here on to bid > as if East has shown Heart support with 6 to 9 HCP. > > Do you need more to see that the "damage" is the difference > between game and 2H ten tricks if West has a minimum hand? Oh, sure, if TD "shall" make that request. But... if the Laws intended that to be the case, they could surely have said so. > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 11:28:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g311PDK13483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:25:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g311OsH13449 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:24:55 +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 g311E7M20942; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:14:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 19:47:58 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Israel Erdnbaum , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> Message-ID: <20020331201407-R01050000-DA9D1180-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-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 6:07 PM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > The first thing you have to decide is ,should you warn E before he corrects > to 2H. Had the TD done that there wouldn't have been any problem. Warn East how? Tell him that while the law gives him an opportunity to allow partner to bid again, if he does so the TD will rule against them? I'm sorry, it just seems to me you're starting from the premise that after the IB the only legal way they can get to game is if East bids it immediately, and I just can't see that. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 11:28:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g311PDZ13485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:25:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g311OuH13458 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:24:57 +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 g311E9M20982; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:14:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 20:09:38 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001701c1d8ec$f07eae40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020331201409-R01050000-DBCE3E80-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-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 9:47 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > There are two situations where a result obtained on a board should be > replaced by an artificial adjusted score: > > 1: When due to some irregularity the obtained score does not relate > to the board as it should have been (for instance if the board is not > identical to the "same" board as played by other contestants or if > some event has made it impossible to play the board in a comparable > way) > > 2: When for some reason the board has not been played at any other > table. IIRC, neither of those conditions applies to the situation in Flader's column. I'll double check that, but assuming I'm right, I guess you're saying I *should* write to him. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 15:23:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g315L1D28597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:21:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe20.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g315KpH28568 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 15:20:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 21:09:59 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [67.192.133.247] From: "axman22" To: , "Jeremy Rickard" References: <200203301910.OAA24264@cfa183.harvard.edu> <012601c1d83c$254375e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 22:34:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Apr 2002 05:09:59.0718 (UTC) FILETIME=[78DDBC60:01C1D93B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There is a leap of logic being made and I though I have tried I am having a difficult time seeing how conveying information, whether substantial or not, damages the 'NOS'. At least that is what L27B1b is addressing, is it not? It seems to me that damage occurs, but not necessarily, as a result of the 'OS' USING information that they did not get legitimately. As opposed to conveying information. regards roger pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 17:41:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g317c6M26154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:38:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g317bhH26105 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:37:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.160.131] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rwD4-0009J4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:26:35 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01c1d94e$afb5faa0$213de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020331201407-R01050000-DA9D1180-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:57:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 1:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > Warn East how? Tell him that while the law gives > him an opportunity to allow partner to bid again, > if he does so the TD will rule against them? I'm > sorry, it just seems to me you're starting from > the premise that after the IB the only legal way > they can get to game is if East bids it immediately, > and I just can't see that. > +=+ It would be open to the Director to read the law to the players. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 17:41:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g317c6v26152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:38:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g317bjH26111 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:37:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.160.131] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rwDA-0009J4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:26:40 +0100 Message-ID: <005e01c1d94e$b2c95520$213de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200203301910.OAA24264@cfa183.harvard.edu> <012601c1d83c$254375e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:25:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: ; "Jeremy Rickard" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > There is a leap of logic being made and I though I > have tried I am having a difficult time seeing how > conveying information, whether substantial or > not, damages the 'NOS'. At least that is what > L27B1b is addressing, is it not? It seems to me > that damage occurs, but not necessarily, as a result > of the 'OS' USING information that they did not get > legitimately. As opposed to conveying information. > > regards > roger pewick > -- +=+ However, the law says it can happen and that it is for the Director to judge whether it has happened. The outcome of this interminable correspondence, if anything, is to suggest how the hapless director might make that judgement. I am sure he will be greatly assisted by what he has read. ;-( In the case put West has used the 'knowledge' that East has an opening bid. The law question to resolve is whether that knowledge lies within the limits of what is allowed by 27B1(a), the judgement to be made is whether NS are damaged by West's use of it. Quite simple, really, let's start again. :-)) ~ 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 Apr 1 17:41:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g317c5w26151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:38:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g317bhH26107 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:37:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.160.131] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rwD8-0009J4-00; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:26:38 +0100 Message-ID: <005d01c1d94e$b1cf16a0$213de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020331201409-R01050000-DBCE3E80-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:10:51 +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" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 3/31/02 at 9:47 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > > > There are two situations where a result obtained on a > > board should be replaced by an artificial adjusted score: > > +=+ The Director is bound by the Laws. If he is awarding an adjusted score it is artificial when "owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained" and it is assigned when it is in place of a result obtained after an irregularity. ~ Grattan ~ Law references 12C1, 12C2, 81B2. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 1 17:41:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g317cAI26169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:38:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g317bhH26106 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 17:37:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.160.131] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16rwD6-0009J4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:26:37 +0100 Message-ID: <005c01c1d94e$b0b1bfc0$213de150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020331201405-R01050000-D96BE480-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 08:01:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 1:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > But the answer to this question depends on the > answer to the question what West is allowed to > do absent the comment, and we haven't resolved > that one, yet. > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ Nor, indeed, is there any expectation that we will. My trash can is now replete with insufficient bids. "If the Director judges ...... " ~ 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 Apr 2 01:49:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31FmMD01226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 01:48:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g31FmCH01196 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 01:48:12 +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 KAA10200 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:37:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA02506 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:37:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 10:37:25 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204011537.KAA02506@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" > 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. Yes. And everyone else at the table is allowed to know this and use the information. Furthermore, East is deprived of all conventions (because such bids will end the auction). Everyone at the table is allowed to know and use this information, too. > 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. This is what we disagree about. Suppose you assign an adjusted score. What shall it be? Remember that West has *done nothing wrong*. Therefore the only "irregularity" (L12C2) is the IB itself. Think about "had the irregularity not occurred." > Except that Law 27B1(b) does not use the term UI they > both have essentially the same function. Not at all, as many people have shown with examples. > West - East > 1H - 1H* changed to 2H > > Comment: TD shall request West from here on to bid > as if East has shown Heart support with 6 to 9 HCP. What Law says this? I cannot find one. It might be helpful to ask how you would have ruled prior to 1997. In the 1987 Laws, L16C2 specifically declared that the withdrawn IB was AI, so there was no doubt whatsoever that West was (then) allowed to use the information. Were you ruling differently prior to 1997? What 1997 changes do you think affect this result? > From: Eric Landau > ... L27B2, which has no > analog to L27B1(b), which, of course, applies only when we rule under > L27B1. Why is that? Remember, the headers and numbering are not part of the Laws. (To Sven: when I wrote this earlier, I was referring to L27, not to L16. There is no doubt that the beginning of L16 is part of the Laws; it is not a "header.") How do you rule 1C-(1C changed to 2C), where the offenders have no natural 2C bid in their vocabulary? Surely they cannot use an IB to create a new, natural bid instead of their normal artificial one. What prevents them from doing so, other than 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 Tue Apr 2 01:50:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31Fo7p01430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 01:50:07 +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 g31FnvH01413 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 01:49:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.1]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTV00LD4VH2QX@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:53:29 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:51:36 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <009f01c1d962$e2eba140$6f4c003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200203292008.PAA01124@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004701c1d763$eddcf6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <003b01c1d768$297fda60$0a01a8c0@davishi> <006701c1d76a$d92a0740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <01b601c1d818$741a9b40$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA631C2.5D082DB8@t-online.de> <015701c1d840$ce463a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CA6CEB6.8CC7B6CA@t-online.de> <004d01c1d899$5a1f9660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000901c1d8df$5e4a0360$654e003e@erdnbaum> <003901c1d8f0$dd10c920$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "In many cases" this is the whole difference between us ,I start this sentence "He has only one* real alternative...." But this has a lot to do with my point of view about *damage. Regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > "So he can *either* show his hand and force his partner to pass for the > rest > > of the auction [because of his UB] or make a bid *which doesn't* tell his > > partner the *correct* > > story of his hand (understatement of the year} [his partner already has > the > > *correct* story] > > but hope that he will have a chance to still reach the best contract." > > YOU MUST BE KIDDING." > > Regards > > No, I am not although it looks that way. > But that is the very problem an offender has after making an insufficient > bid. > > In many cases he has only one real alternative and that is to guess the > contract in which to play and bid that one directly. > > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 03:14:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31HDlD11365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:13:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31HDVH11336 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:13:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g31Gd1M19164; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:39:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:13:54 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient Bid To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <005d01c1d94e$b1cf16a0$213de150@dodona> Message-ID: <20020401113902-R01050000-10360F00-4565-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-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 4/1/02 at 8:10 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > +=+ The Director is bound by the Laws. If he is awarding > an adjusted score it is artificial when "owing to an irregularity > no result can be obtained" and it is assigned when it is in > place of a result obtained after an irregularity. > ~ Grattan ~ > Law references 12C1, 12C2, 81B2. +=+ That's what I thought. Thanks, Grattan (and Sven). 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 Apr 2 03:14:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31HDke11362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:13:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31HDTH11325 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:13:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g31GcxM19117; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:38:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:22:08 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Israel Erdnbaum , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <007301c1d95f$c98a7760$6f4c003e@erdnbaum> Message-ID: <20020401113900-R01050000-0F04E200-4565-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-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 4/1/02 at 11:29 AM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > As far as I am concerned I wouldn't allow them to get to 4H any other way > and I am glad that some TD expressed--the same opinion.But even you have at > least to warn E that there *might-be a problem .Don't you think so? As Grattan pointed out, the TD should read the law to players and, I would add, explain it if they don't understand it. I suppose if I held your position, I would explain to them that there is no way I would allow them to get to game unless East bids it forthwith, barring his partner, and forgoing any possibilities that might have been opened by 27B1(a). IOW, I would tell them, in effect, to ignore the possibility that West can be allowed to participate in the auction. But I am adamantly opposed to that view, because I believe that if it were the intent of the law to preclude that participation, the law would simply say so, and 27B1(a) would not exist. I have not seen any argument here that would cause me to change my mind, nor do I expect to, at this point. I'm sure you feel the same. So there we stand. I think we've beat this horse to death, so I quit. :-) 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 Apr 2 03:14:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31HDkS11360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:13:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31HDRH11321 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:13:28 +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 g31Gd5M19245; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:39:05 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:10:46 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <005b01c1d94e$afb5faa0$213de150@dodona> Message-ID: <20020401113907-R01050000-1330FF80-4565-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-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 4/1/02 at 7:57 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > +=+ It would be open to the Director to read the > law to the players. ~ G ~ +=+ And then what? If a TD simply read the law to me, I would not see how bidding 2H in this case (or if I were the partner of the IBer, how bidding 4H over 2H) could be a problem, unless we were never slated to get to game in the first place. 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 Apr 2 03:14:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31HDrx11379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:13:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31HDRH11322 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:13:28 +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 g31Gd3M19211; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:39:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 11:12:02 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <005c01c1d94e$b0b1bfc0$213de150@dodona> Message-ID: <20020401113905-R01050000-11FFD280-4565-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-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 4/1/02 at 8:01 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > +=+ Nor, indeed, is there any expectation that > we will. My trash can is now replete with > insufficient bids. "If the Director judges ...... " Well and good. But is there no point to a hope that in most cases, good directors will make similar judgements? 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 Apr 2 03:16:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31HGTY11766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:16:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31HGKH11740 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:16:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.124]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTV00I92TWS65@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:19:42 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:18:23 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <006c01c1d95e$2cf213a0$6f4c003e@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: <20020331201405-R01050000-D96BE480-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk You must have overlooked something , in the case I gave all four players *know that E has 6-9 HCP and this is what he has*. So once again *no problems. best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 3/31/02 at 6:23 PM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > > > "SORRY I wanted to bid 2H" he just > > bids 2H and the bidding continues normally. No hay problemas. > > Um. If after the IB, East has a legitimate opportunity to keep the bidding open > by bidding 2H when all four players at the table know (and are allowed to know) > that it can't be limited to 6-9 HCP, then the extraneous comment, which is UI > under 16A, conveys information which West is not allowed to use. Therefore, if > he passes, and doing something else is an LA in the circumstances, and there's > damage, the score should be adjusted. > > But the answer to this question depends on the answer to the question what West > is allowed to do absent the comment, and we haven't resolved that one, yet. > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > 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 Apr 2 03:27:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31HRBt12878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:27:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g31HR2H12861 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:27:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-151-118-59-dial-en2.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-118-59-dial-en2.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.118.59]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g318caD14146 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:38:36 -0900 (AKST) Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:39:06 -0900 (Alaskan Standard Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid In-Reply-To: <004f01c1d8aa$2cb23140$9bdff1c3@tkooij> 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, 31 Mar 2002, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Last week in my club: > [...] > > K73 > KQ5 > QJ73 > 852 > [...] [Auction 2NT - 4NT! - 6S; 4NT was explained as "5 spades and 4 hearts"] Obviously, after the explanation, 6NT is suggested over pass. The only question to be resolved is whether pass is a logical alternative. That depends in part on the interpretation of "logical alternative" that applies in the case. IIRC some jurisdictions deem an action to be a LA if a certain proportion of peers of the player would seriously consider that, while other jurisdictions deem an action to be a LA if some players would take that action. If "seriously consider" is the standard, then I think there is no question; pass is a LA. But if "taking the action" is the standard, the easiest way to answer would be to take a poll, or failing that, try to use one's own bridge judgement. So the question boils down to "Is 6NT a better contract; if so, is that fact obvious enough?" I do think that 6NT is a better contract, whether the scoring is IMPs or top-bottom. The only possible losers are a spade loser and a first- or second-round loser in one of the minors. If spades are trump, a loser in that suit cannot be avoided; but if the hand is played in NT, a spade loser might be avoided, whether by delaying a guess, executing a squeeze, or simply cashing 12 tricks. The risk is that, in 6NT, the spade loser might be inevitable, and the defense can cash enough tricks to set the contract several tricks. At IMPs, where 2-5 IMPs for extra undertricks is almost insignificant compared to 14-17 IMPs for being in the wrong strain, I think the improvement by bidding 6NT rather than passing is obvious enough that pass is not a LA to any thoughtful player. However, at top-or-bottom, while I think that 6NT is better than 6S, I am not certain of it. The possibility of extra undertricks has nearly equal weight as the possiblity of being in a failing 6S when 6NT makes, as well as the extra 10 for notrump. The usual reason for preferring the major at this scoring -- the chance of an extra 20 for the overtrick -- does not figure in here, with no potential of a ruff in responder's hand. So I think resonable thoughtful players may disagree on whether to pass or bid 6NT, and that means that pass is a logical alternative. In short: At IMPs, pass is not a LA; result stands. At top-or-bottom, pass is a LA; adjust to 6S going down. -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA Booze is my anti-drug "I never was particularly good at math." "I noticed," said the demon as it stepped out of the hexagram. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 03:28:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31HS2i12985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:28:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31HRqH12964 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:27:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.124]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTV00IMPUG05W@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:31:14 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:29:55 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <007301c1d95f$c98a7760$6f4c003e@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: <20020331201407-R01050000-DA9D1180-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As far as I am concerned I wouldn't allow them to get to 4H any other way and I am glad that some TD expressed--the same opinion.But even you have at least to warn E that there *might-be a problem .Don't you think so? Best regards Israel-- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 3/31/02 at 6:07 PM, erdnbaum@netvision.net.il (Israel Erdnbaum) wrote: > > > The first thing you have to decide is ,should you warn E before he corrects > > to 2H. Had the TD done that there wouldn't have been any problem. > > Warn East how? Tell him that while the law gives him an opportunity to allow > partner to bid again, if he does so the TD will rule against them? I'm sorry, it > just seems to me you're starting from the premise that after the IB the only > legal way they can get to game is if East bids it immediately, and I just can't > see 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 Apr 2 03:37:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31Hbeq14082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:37:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31HbUH14057 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:37:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.124]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTV00IAZUW295@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:40:52 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:39:33 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <007a01c1d961$21fbf4e0$6f4c003e@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: <20020331201403-R01050000-D83AB780-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he can bid on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means in their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different story. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Sven Pran" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 3/31/02 at 9:15 PM, svenpran@online.no (Sven Pran) wrote: > > > From: "Jeremy Rickard" > > > > > I don't think anybody disagrees. But as well as the information we > > > need the damage. > > > > > [snip] > > > > But (apologies if I've just missed it), I don't think you've > > > described the *damage* in these examples. > > > > I thought that was evident from my quotations, but anyway: > > > > West - East > > 1H - 1H* changed to 2H > > > > Comment: TD shall request West from here on to bid > > as if East has shown Heart support with 6 to 9 HCP. > > > > Do you need more to see that the "damage" is the difference > > between game and 2H ten tricks if West has a minimum hand? > > Oh, sure, if TD "shall" make that request. But... if the Laws intended that to > be the case, they could surely have said so. > > Sven > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > 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 Tue Apr 2 03:42:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31HgHd14774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:42:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31Hg8H14759 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:42:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3888.bb.online.no [80.212.223.48]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA16032 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 19:31:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001301c1d9a3$06de1980$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204011537.KAA02506@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 19:31:05 +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 In the hope that this shall be my last entry on this thread I shall first of all give my sources: Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen wrote Commentary on the Laws as of 1987. in 1992. Grattan was at that time chairman, and Bent was a member of the EBL Laws Committee. Before that, back in 1981 Bent had written a commented issue of the Bridge laws as of 1975 in Danish translation. Before anybody complaints - yes there have been changes, both in 1987 and in 1997, but the comments still add a great deal to the understanding of the laws, even today. The major evolution on the laws pertinent to this thread from 1975 until today has been: (Note that Law 27B1b has not been significantly changed over these years!) Laws of 1975: There was no condition that neither the insufficient bid nor the replacement bid was not conventional for Law 27B1 to apply. Law 16 included no rule on information from withdrawn calls. Proprieties included a general rule that all information from an irregularity was legal for all players once the prescribed penalty had been paid, however several of the laws included special rules (e.g. Law 27B1b) to prevent the offending side from using such information to their own advantage. Bent emphasized in his comments on Law27B1b that cases for adjustment include when the insufficient bid and the replacement bid have significantly different meanings, for instance one of the bids is conventional with a meaning different from the meaning of the other bid, or the bids have significantly different meanings as when the insufficient bid was an opening bid while the replacement bid showed much less strength (like being a simple raise). Laws of 1987: For Law 27B1 to apply it became a requirement that the insufficient bid (but not the replacement bid) was not conventional. Law 16C was introduced, but with the rule that information from withdrawn calls (etc.) by offending side was authorized after their payment of any penalty imposed by law. There was no reference in Law 27 to law 16. Grattan and Bent wrote in their comments to law 27B1(a) that if the offender replaces his insufficient bid with the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, and this replacement bid happens to be defined in their system as a conventional bid, then the Director should inform all players that the replacement bid was to be interpreted and treated as a non-conventional bid. In their comments to Law 27B1(b) they gave various examples of when the insufficient bid conveys information that can be damaging to the non-offending side. These examples all have in common that the insufficient bid shows significantly stronger hands than could be shown by the "lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination". One of the examples is almost identical to the 1H - 1H case which started this thread. Laws of 1997: There was two essential changes related to this thread: Law 16C2 was changed so that information from withdrawn calls and plays was no longer authorized for the offending side even after they had payed the prescribed penalty, and Law 27B1(a) got inserted the clause that law 16C2 does not apply "in this situation". -------- So where do we stand today? All the years since 1975 the information from the insufficient bid has been authorised for the offending side. Law 27B1(b) as we know it today has been the same all the time, and in their comments to the laws written in 1981 and in 1992 first Bent (for the Danish lawbook), and next Grattan and Bent together have emphasized in various words that if the information from the insufficient bid was significantly different from the information conveyed by the replacement bid, the information from the insufficient bid should be considered as possibly damaging the non-offending side and cause the Director to judge whether an adjustment should be made. And the "damage" should be measured against the result obtainable, not as if there had been no irregularity, but as if the replacement bid had been the only bid made by the offender in that round. > It might be helpful to ask how you would have ruled prior to 1997. In > the 1987 Laws, L16C2 specifically declared that the withdrawn IB was > AI, so there was no doubt whatsoever that West was (then) allowed to > use the information. > > Were you ruling differently prior to 1997? What 1997 changes do you > think affect this result? I have been following the advices of Bent, and later Grattan and Bent together all these years, and I still do. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 03:45:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31HjXc15174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31HjOH15152 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 03:45:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16s1ah-0003MK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:11:19 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020401080823.00abcea0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 08:12:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <012601c1d83c$254375e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200203301910.OAA24264@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 05:42 PM 3/30/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > > 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". Indeed you do. Now I do understand that the headings aren't part of the laws per se, but, nevertheless, the fact that the heading of L27B1(a) is "No Penalty" does seem to suggest that that's exactly what the lawmakers intended. 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 Apr 2 04:03:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31I35n17682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 04:03:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31I2tH17647 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 04:02:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.1]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTV00L02W2IZQ@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 13:06:20 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:04:47 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Eric Landau Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <00ae01c1d964$aec222c0$6f4c003e@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> <4.3.2.7.0.20020331163802.00b97870@pop.starpower.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Responder raised opener's 1H bid to 2H FORCING to game" How do you feel writng this? Best regards Israel Erdebaum --- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 11:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > At 01:34 AM 3/30/02, Sven wrote: > > >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. > > On an entirely different deal with the same 1H-P-1H start... > > Over the 2H correction, with the fact that responder has an opening > hand AI to opener, opener bids 2S and responder raises to 3S. With a > secondary fit established opener chooses to cuebid below game on > marginal values, responder cues back, slam is reached, and it makes. > > E-W have had, in effect, an auction on which responder raised opener's > 1H bid to 2H forcing to game. Without the insufficient bid, responder > would have had to bid something more, leaving less room to explore for > slam below game. The TD decides that the slam might not have been bid > without the advantage afforded by the insufficient bid, and reverses > the score under L27B1(b). > > Is that an example we can 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 04:14:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31IDoC18944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 04:13:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31IDfH18920 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 04:13:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.238]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTV00H9VR03XC@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:16:54 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 10:15:04 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, axman22 Cc: ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002f01c1d955$66fa1ec0$6f4c003e@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: <200203301910.OAA24264@cfa183.harvard.edu> <012601c1d83c$254375e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Let me try , at the table we are opponents [enemies] Now assume 1H -2H means 6-10 HCP 3+H and all of a sudden the bidding goes 1H- P-1H oh I haven't seen you opened,OK I"ll bid 2H which now means 5+H - 11 +HCP . Is this good for your opponents? Could W get this information at the 2 level ? No ? So just because of his partner's infraction [which should have-been penalised] he is being 'rewarded' What's good for your opponents is bad for you. So when your-opponent instead of being punished is now in a much better position you have already been "damaged". Bridge being the game it is you will see whether you were damaged and how much only after you open the travelling score sheet. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum P.S. I have done my level best, maybe it's not good enough.Will you please let me know. Thanks T.S.-- Original Message ----- From: "axman22" To: ; "Jeremy Rickard" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 6:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > There is a leap of logic being made and I though I have tried I am having a > difficult time seeing how conveying information, whether substantial or > not, damages the 'NOS'. At least that is what L27B1b is addressing, is it > not? It seems to me that damage occurs, but not necessarily, as a result > of the 'OS' USING information that they did not get legitimately. As > opposed to conveying information. > > regards > roger pewick > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 04:55:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31IspD23718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 04:54:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g31IsgH23700 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 04:54:43 +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 NAA20447 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 13:43:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA09271 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 13:43:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 13:43:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204011843.NAA09271@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" Thanks for the detailed summary. > And the "damage" should be measured against the result > obtainable, not as if there had been no irregularity, but as if > the replacement bid had been the only bid made by the > offender in that round. Which source says this? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 05:08:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31J8I625287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:08:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31J89H25272 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:08:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.124]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTV00L3CTJ2RU@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:11:28 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 11:10:05 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Adam Wildavsky Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <006501c1d95d$04914620$6f4c003e@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: <02f801c1b538$6c107b20$1000200a@krackow.gradient.ie> <00ca01c1bb00$57c35de0$984b003e@erdnbaum> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Why would you rule one down. Because you are a dove? --Best regards Israel--- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Wildavsky" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2002 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy > No good reason -- I wouldn't quarrel with a down four ruling. > > Sorry to take so long to reply! > > AW > > >But why not four? > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Adam Wildavsky" > >To: "Konrad Ciborowski" > >Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > >Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 6:23 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Klaims are eezy > > > > > >> At 10:16 AM +0100 2/14/02, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: > >> >3NT by S > >> > > >> >AQJ10x > >> >Jx > >> >Axx > >> >A10x > >> > > >> >xx > >> >Qxx > >> >QJx > >> >KQxxx > >> > > >> >West leads a heart to the ace and heart is > >> >returned. West takes the king and returns > >> >a third heart, declarer pitching > >> >a diamond from dummy. South now takes > >> >the unsuccessful spade finesse and East > >> >cashes his side's heart winner. Seeing > >> >that West follows declarer claims > >> >stating "I have the rest". > >> > >> Some so-called hawks have suggested the ruling should be down one. > >> Nonsense! Declarer presumably thought he had nine tricks when he > >> claimed -- I see no reason to believe he hadn't miscounted the > >> spades. Accordingly he might as well pitch down to the DA, win the > >> diamond return, run four more spades, and take the CAKQ. Down four! > >> > >> What's the moral? There's no reason to believe that a declarer who > >> can't count to nine can count to thirteen. > >> > >> When you're a hawk you're a hawk all the way... > >> > >> I admit that in practice I'd likely rule down one. It would make for > >> a more interesting case if the clubs were 3-2. > >> > >> -- > >> Adam Wildavsky Principal Tameware, LLC > >> adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com > >> -- > >> ======================================================================== > >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > >> A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Principal Tameware, LLC > adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 05:12:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31JBsl25755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:11:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31JBjH25739 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:11:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3888.bb.online.no [80.212.223.48]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA18462 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:00:53 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003e01c1d9af$8c2936e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204011843.NAA09271@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:00:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > Thanks for the detailed summary. > > > And the "damage" should be measured against the result > > obtainable, not as if there had been no irregularity, but as if > > the replacement bid had been the only bid made by the > > offender in that round. > > Which source says this? Both Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 05:17:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31JGqs26285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:16:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from vladbert.skynet.be (vladbert.skynet.be [195.238.3.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g31JGhH26269 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:16:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by vladbert.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-FALLBACK-2.17) with ESMTP id g317ciB12618 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:38:44 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47885.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.13]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g317cXx19898 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:38:33 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CA80EAE.3020901@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 09:39:26 +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: <000101c1d8ac$9322f200$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'm sorry Rui, Rui Marques wrote: > > > Here, with the correct procedure from the TD and no words spoken that > may give rise to UI, I am 100% on the field of "no damage, score > stands". > This won't stand. "No words spoken that may give rise to UI". You apparently make a distinction between a player sayiing nothing and one saying "oh, I did not see your opening bid", making the bid AI, but the words UI? I doubt if that were the LC intention, since there is really no way ever that a 1He bid, when insufficient, is not accompanied by some gesture or anything which makes it clear what kind of misapprehension the bidder is under. I believe we should consider all "I" as "AI" in here. Which does not mean that the TD should add to it, of course. > > > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A > Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 2 05:19:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31JJ3T26506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:19:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g31JIsH26491 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:18:55 +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 OAA21893 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:08:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA09477 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:08:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 14:08:07 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204011908.OAA09477@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" > > > And the "damage" should be measured against the result > > > obtainable, not as if there had been no irregularity, but as if > > > the replacement bid had been the only bid made by the > > > offender in that round. > Both [sources say this] Thanks for such a quick response. This completely summarizes the disagreement. I cannot see any justification in the Laws for this position. It also seems in conflict with the Code of Practice. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 05:36:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31JaMR28435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:36:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31JaDH28415 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 05:36:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3888.bb.online.no [80.212.223.48]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA06114 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:25:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005201c1d9b2$f6f45ba0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204011908.OAA09477@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:25:20 +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: "Steve Willner" > > > > And the "damage" should be measured against the result > > > > obtainable, not as if there had been no irregularity, but as if > > > > the replacement bid had been the only bid made by the > > > > offender in that round. > > > Both [sources say this] > > Thanks for such a quick response. My pleasure > > This completely summarizes the disagreement. I cannot see any > justification in the Laws for this position. It also seems in > conflict with the Code of Practice. Well, I don't know about others, but rather than practicing laws to the letter (in my understanding) I prefer to follow the advices when available from those who have the authority to explain how the laws are to be understood and used. (And I certainly have no desire to be in conflict with the practice where I direct). My experience is that lawtext can easily contain undesired "surprises" while the clarifications are more reliable. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 06:13:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31KCma02637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:12:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31KCeH02621 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:12:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 31213 invoked by uid 504); 1 Apr 2002 20:01:50 -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 0.906747 secs); 01 Apr 2002 20:01:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.246) by 0 with SMTP; 1 Apr 2002 20:01:49 -0000 Message-ID: <005401c1d9b7$8a944560$f616b9d2@laptop> From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <20020331201403-R01050000-D83AB780-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <007a01c1d961$21fbf4e0$6f4c003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 07:58:05 +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: ; Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he can bid > on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means in > their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different story. It escapes me how the original 1h bidder can tell that his partner's 1h was intended as an opener and not a misbid intended as a 2h. 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 Apr 2 06:13:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31KDcX02746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:13:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.midtechnologies.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g31KDQH02715 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:13:27 +1000 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:20:19 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D4@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'Eric Landau '" , "'Bridge Laws Discussion List '" Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:20:19 -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 In my copy of the rules L11A does not contain the word "only" or any equivalent. The second sentence provides an example of when the first sentence applies, but does not suggest that this is the only case. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: 3/28/02 4:18 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 Tue Apr 2 06:13:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31KDg102750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:13:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com (exchange.midtechnologies.com [207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g31KDUH02732 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:13:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:44:35 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D5@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au '" Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 09:44:34 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I play recreational bridge with friends about once a month. And we do play by a simpler "code of Laws." Somebody revokes -- well, fix it. A bid out of turn -- "Mike, it's not your turn -- Bill, your the dealer". A lead out of turn -- "PLeas put that card back in your hand, it's not your lead." We don't play one bids -- way back then someone thought they were too easy, or perhaps it was too hard, or maybe it just didn't give a high enough score. We play the same way at the club (except for the part about one bids) at some games--No wait, those are the beginners classes. I don't know anyone at the club who would tolerate, much less welcome, playing by the kind of "simpler" laws that you are suggesting. -----Original Message----- From: Israel Erdnbaum To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; John (MadDog) Probst Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Sent: 3/29/02 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 06:39:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31KdUY05676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:39:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g31KdLH05651 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:39:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05853; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 12:28:46 -0800 Message-Id: <200204012028.MAA05853@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Apr 2002 07:58:05 +1200." <005401c1d9b7$8a944560$f616b9d2@laptop> Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 12:28:46 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne wrote: > > In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he can > bid > > on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means in > > their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different story. > > It escapes me how the original 1h bidder can tell that his partner's 1h was > intended as an opener and not a misbid intended as a 2h. In practice, I think the former is much more likely. It's pretty common to misread the notation indicating who's the dealer, especially on some badly designed duplicate boards I've seen; in that case, after 1H-pass-, an inattentive responder may think his RHO is the dealer and passed. On the other hand, if you know your partner has opened 1H and you intent to raise, I don't think it's common at all to think you're supposed to bid "one heart" now, since a one-level bid can't be a raise. If you do happen to mispull or misspeak, this is the kind of thing I'd expect would be caught immediately and corrected "in the same breath". I could be wrong, but if the auction goes 1H-pass-1H, I would assume that either (a) responder thought he was opening, or (b) responder thought his partner opened 1C or 1D. Assuming responder intended to raise to 2H would be *way* down on the list. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 06:47:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31KlcE06623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:47:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31KlTH06603 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:47:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3888.bb.online.no [80.212.223.48]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA08384 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 22:36:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006201c1d9bc$ec359c60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Discussion List '" References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D4@al21.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 22:36:34 +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: "John Nichols" > In my copy of the rules L11A does not contain the word "only" or any > equivalent. The second sentence provides an example of when the first > sentence applies, but does not suggest that this is the only case. Correct, The Director "may" cancel the penalty if NOS takes any action ..... and he is supposed to do so if NOS may have gained from such action .... The director even has the option to cancel the redress for NOS while still "penalising" the offending side, for instance by maintaining the penalty but also giving a procedural penalty to NOS balancing out their redress - Law 90. This should of course be a very extraordinary action by the Director, but I have a feeling that is what Grattan described below. Sven > 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. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 06:58:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31KwLu08367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:58:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31KwBH08345 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 06:58:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3888.bb.online.no [80.212.223.48]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA24151 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 22:47:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007001c1d9be$6a004220$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204012028.MAA05853@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 22:47:14 +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: "Adam Beneschan" > > It escapes me how the original 1h bidder can tell that his partner's 1h was > > intended as an opener and not a misbid intended as a 2h. > > In practice, I think the former is much more likely. It's pretty > common to misread the notation indicating who's the dealer, especially > on some badly designed duplicate boards I've seen; in that case, after > 1H-pass-, an inattentive responder may think his RHO is the dealer and > passed. On the other hand, if you know your partner has opened 1H and > you intent to raise, I don't think it's common at all to think you're > supposed to bid "one heart" now, since a one-level bid can't be a > raise. If you do happen to mispull or misspeak, this is the kind of > thing I'd expect would be caught immediately and corrected "in the > same breath". > > I could be wrong, but if the auction goes 1H-pass-1H, I would assume > that either (a) responder thought he was opening, or (b) responder > thought his partner opened 1C or 1D. Assuming responder intended to > raise to 2H would be *way* down on the list. You are very right. When arriving at a table in such cases we (well I at least) almost always can tell immediately from the attitudes at the table and how the case is presented to me what really happened, whether the insufficient bid was intended as an opening bid or not. If only all cases had been that easy! Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 08:36:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31MZSA23961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 08:35:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31MZKH23946 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 08:35:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16sAE5-000291-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 17:24:33 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020401163643.00ab6260@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 17:26:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <00ae01c1d964$aec222c0$6f4c003e@erdnbaum> References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020331163802.00b97870@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 05:04 AM 4/1/02, Israel wrote: >"Responder raised opener's 1H bid to 2H FORCING to game" How do you feel >writng this? I feel a bit perplexed that my meaning wasn't obvious. Responder raised 1H to 2H. Opener knows from the table action that responder has an opening bid. Therefore opener is free to bid below game without fear of missing game, because he knows that responder will keep bidding at least until game is reached. And since responder knows that opener knows that he has an opening bid, he can do the same. And since opener knows that responder knows that he knows, he knows that responder can do things like make a slam-exploratory bid without showing extra values. Etc. Now if the pair reaches a good contract just because "opener knows... that responder has an opening bid", there will, in the opinion of what seems to be a majority of those who have posted on the subject, be no basis for adjustment, because the parenthetical in L27B1(a) says that this information is authorized. If, however, the pair reaches a good contract not just because opener has this AI about responder's hand. but also because "opener is free to bid below game... know[ing] that responder will keep bidding... etc.", he uses additional information beyond what was authorized by L71B1(a), therefore L27B1(b) kicks in. I have not yet formulated my own opinion on this issue -- I'm still listening -- but I'm leaning towards agreeing with the apparent majority, if only because the "Sven school" seems to be saying that the combined effect of the parenthetical in L27B1(a) and L27B1(b) is nothing more than an extension of the time limit for L25A. IOW, the inapplicability of L16C2 means nothing to the insufficient bidder in our example case unless he holds a hand which would have been described with an original 2H bid, i.e. one with which he presumably intended to bid 2H in the first place. I'm convinced that the parenthetical in L27B1(a) and L27B1(b) mean more than that, and am waiting to see if someone can come up with a more satisfactory interpretation that would allow 4H+1 to be adjusted to 2H+3. I feel as though unless someone does, I shall ultimately vote with the "score stands" camp. 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 Apr 2 09:15:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31NFFw29329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:15:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g31NF2H29311 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:15:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.68.166] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16sAqB-000JS6-00; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:03:55 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01c1d9d1$a275b5a0$a644e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200204011908.OAA09477@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 00:03:40 +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: Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > From: "Sven Pran" > > > Both [sources say this] > > Thanks for such a quick response. > > This completely summarizes the disagreement. I cannot > see any justification in the Laws for this position. It also > seems in conflict with the Code of Practice. > -- +=+ I thought I might go back and see what we did say pre-1997. I quote: "[the Director applies 27B1(b)]..... 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 opprtunity of, conveying." So, 'one case' - evidently there may be others. And example A: West North East South 1C P 1C - both bids natural; the suit selected so that they can only be two opening bids. Cited as a case where the insufficient bid can lead to damage of the non-offending side. The extracts are from the 1992 Commentary. If quoting the Commentary it is helpful to quote adequately.(I have heard of no change in this EBL Laws Committee guidance since 1992 and I do not think 27B1(b) has altered meantime.) The WBF CoP states: "For information to be deemed authorized there must be an indication from the laws and regulations that the use of that information is intended." True, but the crucial question in the case in point is whether it is AI under 27B1(a) or whether it falls under 27B1(b). So no white smoke until the Director judges the answer to this question. In Zone 1 we are back to example A. ~ 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 Apr 2 09:15:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31NFCE29324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:15:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g31NEwH29292 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:14:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.68.166] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16sAq8-000JS6-00; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:03:52 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01c1d9d1$a054f880$a644e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020401113905-R01050000-11FFD280-4565-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 20:41:34 +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: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 5:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 4/1/02 at 8:01 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > > > +=+ Nor, indeed, is there any expectation that > > we will. My trash can is now replete with > > insufficient bids. "If the Director judges ...... " > > Well and good. But is there no point to a hope > that in most cases, good directors will make > similar judgements? > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ The long correspondence has left them with a wide field of choice. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 09:15:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31NFA629321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:15:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g31NEvH29288 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:14:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.68.166] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16sAq6-000JS6-00; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:03:50 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c1d9d1$9f40c960$a644e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020401113907-R01050000-1330FF80-4565-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 20:39:15 +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: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 4/1/02 at 7:57 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > > > +=+ It would be open to the Director to read the > > law to the players. ~ G ~ +=+ > > And then what? If a TD simply read the law to me, > I would not see how bidding 2H in this case (or if > I were the partner of the IBer, how bidding 4H over > 2H) could be a problem, unless we were never > slated to get to game in the first place. > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ The player is then informed as to his situation and, as is proper, must judge for himself what action to take. It is specifically inappropriate that the Director should advise him what calls he may make (and may not make) in a judgemental rather than a mechanical situation. ~ 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 Apr 2 09:31:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g31NUvi01242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:30:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g31NUmH01224 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:30:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.47.136] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16sB5N-000KqN-00; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 00:19:38 +0100 Message-ID: <006201c1d9d3$d40c7e80$a644e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Nichols" , "'Eric Landau '" , "'Bridge Laws Discussion List '" References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D4@al21.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 00:18:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'Eric Landau '" ; "'Bridge Laws Discussion List '" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:20 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] "or requires its retraction" > In my copy of the rules L11A does not contain > the word "only" or any equivalent. The second > sentence provides an example of when the first > sentence applies, but does not suggest that > this is the only case. > +=+ It is a common misunderstanding to believe that the circumstances in which the Law requires the Director to declare the penalty forfeit are the only circumstances in which he may do it. The Law does not say that, and the sense of the first statement in the Law conflicts with any such idea. If it were the case we could have written the Law in a single sentence. ~ 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 Apr 2 10:00:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3200Nn04544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:00:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep2.012.net.il (fep2.goldenlines.net.il [212.117.129.202]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3200DH04525 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:00:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.35.214]) by fep2.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020401234341.ZXDV3426.fep2@zshilon>; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 01:43:41 +0200 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "Eric Landau" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: FW: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 02:49:24 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry Eric, this should have gone to the discussion list. zvika Modiin, Israel -----Original Message----- From: Zvi Shilon [mailto:zvika2@012.net.il] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:37 AM To: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid This tread has been going for a long time. I am now inclined to agree with Eric Landau, but I am still mystified by the logic of law 27b1a. I fail to see why telling your partner illegally (although this law seems to say it is not illegal) that you have an opening bid is AI, but I just don't see the difference of bidding 1 heart and correcting to 2 hearts or bidding 2 hearts immediately and saying out loud that I have an opening bid is any different. In both cases, partner has information that he shouldn't have. Again, it is the interpretation, canceling law 16c2 that I have trouble with. But, I can't argue that it does cancel law 16c2. I suppose Eric and I are on the same wavelength - he is looking for a different interpretation and I am questioning the logic. zvika Modiin, Israel -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Eric Landau Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:26 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid At 05:04 AM 4/1/02, Israel wrote: >"Responder raised opener's 1H bid to 2H FORCING to game" How do you feel >writng this? I feel a bit perplexed that my meaning wasn't obvious. Responder raised 1H to 2H. Opener knows from the table action that responder has an opening bid. Therefore opener is free to bid below game without fear of missing game, because he knows that responder will keep bidding at least until game is reached. And since responder knows that opener knows that he has an opening bid, he can do the same. And since opener knows that responder knows that he knows, he knows that responder can do things like make a slam-exploratory bid without showing extra values. Etc. Now if the pair reaches a good contract just because "opener knows... that responder has an opening bid", there will, in the opinion of what seems to be a majority of those who have posted on the subject, be no basis for adjustment, because the parenthetical in L27B1(a) says that this information is authorized. If, however, the pair reaches a good contract not just because opener has this AI about responder's hand. but also because "opener is free to bid below game... know[ing] that responder will keep bidding... etc.", he uses additional information beyond what was authorized by L71B1(a), therefore L27B1(b) kicks in. I have not yet formulated my own opinion on this issue -- I'm still listening -- but I'm leaning towards agreeing with the apparent majority, if only because the "Sven school" seems to be saying that the combined effect of the parenthetical in L27B1(a) and L27B1(b) is nothing more than an extension of the time limit for L25A. IOW, the inapplicability of L16C2 means nothing to the insufficient bidder in our example case unless he holds a hand which would have been described with an original 2H bid, i.e. one with which he presumably intended to bid 2H in the first place. I'm convinced that the parenthetical in L27B1(a) and L27B1(b) mean more than that, and am waiting to see if someone can come up with a more satisfactory interpretation that would allow 4H+1 to be adjusted to 2H+3. I feel as though unless someone does, I shall ultimately vote with the "score stands" camp. 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 Tue Apr 2 15:32:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g325Vft18493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:31:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g325VXH18489 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:31:34 +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 TAA05843 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 19:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA11788 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 19:16:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 19:16:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204020016.TAA11788@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: "Grattan Endicott" > So, 'one case' - evidently there may be others. > And example A: > West North East South > 1C P 1C > - both bids natural; the suit selected so that they can only > be two opening bids. Cited as a case where the insufficient > bid can lead to damage of the non-offending side. Thanks, Grattan, but we are not much further along. Everyone agrees that there _can_ be damage after the above auction. The disagreement is how to measure damage. Perhaps we can make progress by asking what score we will assign under L12C2 if we judge that there _is_ damage: a) the score after 1C-(p)-?, and EW use their normal bidding system, i.e., the "irregularity" in L12C2 is the IB, or b) the score after 1C-(p)-1C, and East makes a wild stab at a contract, i.e., the "irregularity" in L12C2 is something that happened after the IB. (Presumably it is something that West did.) (Obviously in either case, we use "probable/at all likely" so as to give some benefit of doubt to the NOS, but where do we start?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 15:42:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g325glU18541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:42:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g325geH18537 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 15:42:41 +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 g31Nw5o08163 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 00:58:05 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 00:43:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <20020331201407-R01050000-DA9D1180-44E3-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <005b01c1d94e$afb5faa0$213de150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <005b01c1d94e$afb5faa0$213de150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <005b01c1d94e$afb5faa0$213de150@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"Were their rewards to be at the discretion of >absolute rulers, their punishments to be without >appeal?" - Tacitus P. Cornelius >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Ed Reppert" >To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; >"Bridge Laws" >Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 1:47 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > >> >> Warn East how? Tell him that while the law gives >> him an opportunity to allow partner to bid again, >> if he does so the TD will rule against them? I'm >> sorry, it just seems to me you're starting from >> the premise that after the IB the only legal way >> they can get to game is if East bids it immediately, >> and I just can't see that. >> >+=+ It would be open to the Director to read the >law to the players. ~ G ~ +=+ and furthermore interpret it for their benefit so they have a clear understanding of how the Law pertains to their case. if the players do not have this then they shooting in the dark. cheers john > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 16:18:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g326IDO18566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:18:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g326I8H18562 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:18:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-151-121-146-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-121-146-dial-en5.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.146]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g321imD16216 for ; Mon, 1 Apr 2002 16:44:48 -0900 (AKST) Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:45:18 -0900 (Alaskan Standard Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <005401c1d9b7$8a944560$f616b9d2@laptop> 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 Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Wayne Burrows wrote: > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > > In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he can > bid > > on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means in > > their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different story. > > It escapes me how the original 1h bidder can tell that his partner's 1h was > intended as an opener and not a misbid intended as a 2h. > Or another possibility, that 1H was intended as a response to 1D. -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA Booze is my anti-drug -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 17:00:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32704e18648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:00:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g326xwH18640 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:59:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.53.81] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16sI1o-000Lkt-00; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 07:44:24 +0100 Message-ID: <001801c1da12$95500380$5135e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Zvi Shilon" , "Eric Landau" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 07:45:49 +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 > -----Original Message----- > From: Zvi Shilon [mailto:zvika2@012.net.il] > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:37 AM > To: Eric Landau > Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > This tread has been going for a long time. I am now inclined to > agree with Eric Landau, but I am still mystified by the logic of > law 27b1a. > +=+ (a) wanted to let the hand go ahead as often as possible (b) was a safety net in case to do so proved unfair. At the time the terrors were largely nameless but known to be out there in the dark It seems we have joined them in the dark. +=+ > > Opener knows from the table action that responder has an > opening bid. > +=+ In the case cited he does not know this from the insufficient bid since he does not know from that alone whether East was opening, responding to what he though West had bid, or overcalling what he thought RHO had opened. This was cleared up by the mannerisms and what was said. +=+ > >. I'm convinced that the parenthetical in L27B1(a) and L27B1(b) > mean more than that, and am waiting to see if someone can > come up with a more satisfactory interpretation that would > allow 4H+1 to be adjusted to 2H+3. > +=+ That is a leap in itself. The information that East has an opener does not necessarily lead to 2H+3 if adjudged to be a (b) circumstance. The information that, for some reason unknown, East wanted to bid 1H is then still available under (a). I am still contemplating the possibility of a route to 4H via some other bid by West; would I allow of it in a score adjustment? ~ 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 Apr 2 17:28:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g327Sb218706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:28:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g327SVH18702 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 17:28:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.35.214]) by fep1.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020402071841.VLPA572.fep1@zshilon> for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:18:41 +0200 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:16:29 +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 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > > In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he can > bid > > on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means in > > their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different story. The problem is that we are being told that it is ethical to use the information, and the laws seem to back this up. That is why I agree with Eric Landau that I would like to see someone come up with a better interpretation of L27B1(a) and L27B1(b). Before this discussion, in the actual case, I would not have dreamed of bidding over the correction to 2 hearts. Now, I am not so sure. To me, that is the real dilemma. As east, before the discussion, I would have corrected to 4 hearts. Again, now I am not so sure. zvika Modiin, Israel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 22:03:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32C2ex18906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:02:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32C2UH18901 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:02:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.177]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTX0012XVLT1W@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:51:33 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:52:49 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , Zvi Shilon , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Sven Pran , ayala hiler , Mark Horton Message-id: <001e01c1da45$5e4eb6a0$b15f003e@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 are *being told what's *ethical*.Till yesteday it wasn't ethical ,so what happened? A parenthetical from where? From the Mount of Sinai? Do you [and other BLML's]always do what you *are told? I can understand TD scared of the powers to be ,scared by AC. But as a player Zvi don't you use your judgement about what's ethical? You are being told* so you comply, and how do you feel about it? This is what I asked Eric. All the best Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > > > > In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he can > > bid > > > on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means > in > > > their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different story. > > The problem is that we are being told that it is ethical to use the > information, and the laws seem to back this up. That is why I agree with > Eric Landau that I would like to see someone come up with a better > interpretation of L27B1(a) and L27B1(b). Before this discussion, in the > actual case, I would not have dreamed of bidding over the correction to 2 > hearts. Now, I am not so sure. To me, that is the real dilemma. As east, > before the discussion, I would have corrected to 4 hearts. Again, now I am > not so sure. > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 23:02:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32D2PP19020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 23:02:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32D2JH19016 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 23:02:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.183]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTX005P2YDNY5@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:51:26 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:53:08 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Zvi Shilon Cc: Sven Pran , Mark Horton , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004301c1da4d$b9c7caa0$b15f003e@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 don't understand your dilemma,if one is playing a new* sort of bridge with a new approach to ethics one would be a fool to bid 4H ,the parenthetical frees you from this unsavoury decision ,and opens to one, before unknown ways of communication.That one reeives this bounty because of an infraction, should send one to the Law book . Who knows maybe there are some other *good opportunities hidden there. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > > > > In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he can > > bid > > > on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means > in > > > their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different story. > > The problem is that we are being told that it is ethical to use the > information, and the laws seem to back this up. That is why I agree with > Eric Landau that I would like to see someone come up with a better > interpretation of L27B1(a) and L27B1(b). Before this discussion, in the > actual case, I would not have dreamed of bidding over the correction to 2 > hearts. Now, I am not so sure. To me, that is the real dilemma. As east, > before the discussion, I would have corrected to 4 hearts. Again, now I am > not so sure. > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 2 23:27:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32DR4F19038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 23:27:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32DQtH19034 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 23:27:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16sO8s-0007fY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 08:16:06 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020402080018.00acd140@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 08:17:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A [WAS "or requires its retraction"] In-Reply-To: <006201c1d9d3$d40c7e80$a644e150@dodona> References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D4@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 06:18 PM 4/1/02, Grattan wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John Nichols" > > > In my copy of the rules L11A does not contain > > the word "only" or any equivalent. The second > > sentence provides an example of when the first > > sentence applies, but does not suggest that > > this is the only case. > >+=+ It is a common misunderstanding to believe >that the circumstances in which the Law requires >the Director to declare the penalty forfeit are the >only circumstances in which he may do it. The >Law does not say that, and the sense of the first >statement in the Law conflicts with any such idea. >If it were the case we could have written the Law >in a single sentence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am having trouble understanding this. L11A says, "The director so rules when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty." Grattan (along with others) tell me that this is intended to require the director to so rule when the condition holds, and also to allow him to so rule, at his discretion, presumably, since no other conditions are explicitly spelled out, when the condition does not hold. That makes sense only if there are circumstances in which the condition does not hold, but in which it would be consensually obvious (what other criterion are we to use, for lack of anything explicit in TFLB?) that L11A should nevertheless be applied. I would very much like to see an example of such circumstances. Without one, we are being told that the second sentence of L11A is equivalent to, "The director must so rule when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty, and may so rule whenever else he feels like it." Was that really what L11A was intended to mean? 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 Apr 3 00:22:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32ELdH19084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:21:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32ELWH19080 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:21:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0872.bb.online.no [80.212.211.104]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA18887 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:10:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004501c1da50$2a176660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D4@al21.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020402080018.00acd140@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A [WAS "or requires its retraction"] Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 16:10:37 +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: "Eric Landau" ..... > I would very much like to see an example of such > circumstances. Without one, we are being told that the second sentence > of L11A is equivalent to, "The director must so rule when the > non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by > an opponent in ignorance of the penalty, and may so rule whenever else > he feels like it." Was that really what L11A was intended to mean? One obvious example is an opponent taking some action after an infraction of some kind, and then discovering that he had really been better of by awaiting the director and "cash" the compulsory (by law) redress. (I am intentionally abstract on the kind of irregularity here). Although the opponent has not gained anything by his action, the director ought to, particularly if the action by NOS demonstrates ignorance of the laws, still rule according to L11A and deny NOS any compensation. The alternative in Law11A when opponent has gained anything by his action gives the Director no option other than to cancel the penalty. (And as i understand it - subject to objections - is that this is the rule even if the "gain" by the action, although a real gain, is less than what would have been the 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 Wed Apr 3 01:28:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32FRXu19112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:27:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32FRRH19108 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:27:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.22]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTY0062O51FZB@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:15:17 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:16:59 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Eric Landau Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003a01c1da61$d2512260$164c003e@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> <4.3.2.7.0.20020331163802.00b97870@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020401163643.00ab6260@pop.starpower.net> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry my mistake,after reading again your post ,I realise that the knowledge that the opponents [OS]" are free to bid *without fear of missing game" means nothing. nothing to you. Your meaning being so obvious, makes my question simply foolish. So once again sorry for asking. Best regards Israel----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > At 05:04 AM 4/1/02, Israel wrote: > > >"Responder raised opener's 1H bid to 2H FORCING to game" How do you feel > >writng this? > > I feel a bit perplexed that my meaning wasn't obvious > Opener knows from the table action that responder has an opening bid. > > Therefore opener is free to bid below game without fear of missing > game, because he knows that responder will keep bidding at least until > game is reached. And since responder knows that opener knows that he > has an opening bid, he can do the same. And since opener knows that > responder knows that he knows, he knows that responder can do things > like make a slam-exploratory bid without showing extra values. Etc. > > Now if the pair reaches a good contract just because "opener knows... > that responder has an opening bid", there will, in the opinion of what > seems to be a majority of those who have posted on the subject, be no > basis for adjustment, because the parenthetical in L27B1(a) says that > this information is authorized. > > If, however, the pair reaches a good contract not just because opener > has this AI about responder's hand. but also because "opener is free to > bid below game... know[ing] that responder will keep bidding... etc.", > he uses additional information beyond what was authorized by L71B1(a), > therefore L27B1(b) kicks in. > > I have not yet formulated my own opinion on this issue -- I'm still > listening -- but I'm leaning towards agreeing with the apparent > majority, if only because the "Sven school" seems to be saying that the > combined effect of the parenthetical in L27B1(a) and L27B1(b) is > nothing more than an extension of the time limit for L25A. IOW, the > inapplicability of L16C2 means nothing to the insufficient bidder in > our example case unless he holds a hand which would have been described > with an original 2H bid, i.e. one with which he presumably intended to > bid 2H in the first place. I'm convinced that the parenthetical in > L27B1(a) and L27B1(b) mean more than that, and am waiting to see if > someone can come up with a more satisfactory interpretation that would > allow 4H+1 to be adjusted to 2H+3. > > I feel as though unless someone does, I shall ultimately vote with the > "score stands" camp. > > > 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 Wed Apr 3 01:28:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32FSAI19124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:28:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32FS3H19114 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:28:04 +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 g32FHDo02715; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:17:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:09:56 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020402101714-R01050000-CD3A7100-4622-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@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 4/2/02 at 7:45 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > +=+ In the case cited he does not know this from the insufficient > bid since he does not know from that alone whether East was > opening, responding to what he though West had bid, or > overcalling what he thought RHO had opened. This was cleared > up by the mannerisms and what was said. +=+ Um. Good point. What he *does* know, however, is that 2H, or whatever it was, is the *only* bid East could make that would allow West to say anything at all. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 Apr 3 01:28:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32FSLl19132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:28:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32FSDH19126 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:28:13 +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 g32FHOo02934 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:17:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:05:42 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bi To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020402101726-R01050000-D4617F00-4622-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@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 4/2/02 at 12:43 AM, john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) wrote: > and furthermore interpret it for their benefit so they have a clear > understanding of how the Law pertains to their case. if the players do > not have this then they shooting in the dark. Agreed. But I still say that if the TD's interpretation is that West, having AI that East has an opening hand, is not allowed to bid game over 2S, when he *knows* (and is allowed to know) that East does *not* have a normal simple raise, that's just wrong. Otherwise there's no point to 27B1(a) at all. Here's a question: if the TD does rule that way, and you agree with me, and decide to appeal, is this a matter of TD judgement, or is it a point of law (cf. L93B3 "the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of 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 Wed Apr 3 01:32:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32FWS519154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:32:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32FWMH19150 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:32:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.22]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTY0068L5BMZ2@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:21:24 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:23:06 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Michael Schmahl Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004d01c1da62$acf0d8c0$164c003e@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 Apparently Quite unbelievable E admitted that he thought he was opening. I do hope everything is clear now . Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Schmahl" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 3:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > > > > In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he can > > bid > > > on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means in > > > their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different story. > > > > It escapes me how the original 1h bidder can tell that his partner's 1h was > > intended as an opener and not a misbid intended as a 2h. > > > > Or another possibility, that 1H was intended as a response to 1D. > > -- > Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA > Booze is my anti-drug > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 01:44:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32Fi0F19205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:44:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32FhsH19201 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:43:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.78.184]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTY006GT5UXZF@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:33:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:34:12 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Steve Willner Cc: Sven Pran , Herman De Wael , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <006a01c1da64$4bff6ca0$164c003e@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: <200204011537.KAA02506@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wouldn't it be nice if the *lawmakers would tell us that this why*they included 27 B1b Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > From: "Sven Pran" > > 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. > > Yes. And everyone else at the table is allowed to know this and use > the information. Furthermore, East is deprived of all conventions > (because such bids will end the auction). Everyone at the table is > allowed to know and use this information, too. > > > 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. > > This is what we disagree about. > > Suppose you assign an adjusted score. What shall it be? Remember that > West has *done nothing wrong*. Therefore the only "irregularity" > (L12C2) is the IB itself. Think about "had the irregularity not > occurred." > > > Except that Law 27B1(b) does not use the term UI they > > both have essentially the same function. > > Not at all, as many people have shown with examples. > > > West - East > > 1H - 1H* changed to 2H > > > > Comment: TD shall request West from here on to bid > > as if East has shown Heart support with 6 to 9 HCP. > > What Law says this? I cannot find one. > > It might be helpful to ask how you would have ruled prior to 1997. In > the 1987 Laws, L16C2 specifically declared that the withdrawn IB was > AI, so there was no doubt whatsoever that West was (then) allowed to > use the information. > > Were you ruling differently prior to 1997? What 1997 changes do you > think affect this result? > > > From: Eric Landau > > ... L27B2, which has no > > analog to L27B1(b), which, of course, applies only when we rule under > > L27B1. > > Why is that? Remember, the headers and numbering are not part of the > Laws. (To Sven: when I wrote this earlier, I was referring to L27, not > to L16. There is no doubt that the beginning of L16 is part of the > Laws; it is not a "header.") > > How do you rule 1C-(1C changed to 2C), where the offenders have no > natural 2C bid in their vocabulary? Surely they cannot use an IB to > create a new, natural bid instead of their normal artificial one. What > prevents them from doing so, other than 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 02:00:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32FxMB19251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:59:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32FxEH19246 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 01:59:15 +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 g32FmKM16101 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:48:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 10:18:02 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004501c1da50$2a176660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020402104818-R01050000-24424500-4627-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@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 Perhaps this is pedantry on my part, but I find the wording of law 11 interesting. "The right to penalize an irregularity may be forfeited..." implies to me that a player *has* a right to penalize an opponent. Yet Law 10 says "The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable. Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) penalties on their own initiative." How can a player forfeit a right he does not have? 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 Apr 3 02:10:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32G9nv19284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 02:09:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32G9iH19280 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 02:09:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16sQgR-0007bP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:58:55 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020402101534.00a8af00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 10:58:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A [WAS "or requires its retraction"] In-Reply-To: <004501c1da50$2a176660$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D4@al21.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020402080018.00acd140@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:10 AM 4/2/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > I would very much like to see an example of such > > circumstances. Without one, we are being told that the second > sentence > > of L11A is equivalent to, "The director must so rule when the > > non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by > > an opponent in ignorance of the penalty, and may so rule whenever else > > he feels like it." Was that really what L11A was intended to mean? > >One obvious example is an opponent taking some action after an infraction >of some kind, and then discovering that he had really been better of by >awaiting the director and "cash" the compulsory (by law) redress. >(I am intentionally abstract on the kind of irregularity here). Translating the second sentence of L11A into Sven's terminology, it says that the director "so rules" (i.e. waives the penalty) when "an opponent tak[es] some action after an infraction of some kind, and then discover[s] that *the OS* [would have] really been better of[f] by awaiting the director and 'cash[ing]' the compulsory (by law) redress". As I read it, that is what L11A is intended to accomplish: it protects the OS from getting a worse score than they would have received if the TD had been called and the proper penalty exacted. >Although the opponent has not gained anything by his action, the director >ought to, particularly if the action by NOS demonstrates ignorance of the >laws, still rule according to L11A and deny NOS any compensation. In Sven's generic case, "the opponent has not gained anything..." indeed. In fact, they have lost something. So Sven is telling us that we should waive the penalty (I assume that's what he means by "rule according to L11A") whenever the OS has gained by the NOS's failure to call the TD, as well as whenever the OS has lost by it, IOW, whenever the failure to call the TD has made any difference at all in the result. That reduces L11A to, "The right to penalize an irregularity shall be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director", period, and the second sentence becomes meaningless. I do not believe that. I am certain that L11A allows for circumstances in which the penalty should not be waived. If the director "so rules when the NOS may have gained" and also under other circumstances as well, there must be cases in which the director "so rules" when the NOS could not have gained, but there must also be cases in which the director does *not* "so rule" when the NOS could not have gained. I have yet to see any suggestion as to how one is supposed to distinguish between these cases. >The alternative in Law11A when opponent has gained anything by his >action gives the Director no option other than to cancel the penalty. Right. So if the Director has no option other than to cancel the penalty when opponent has gained anything, and should nevertheless cancel the penalty when opponent has lost something, when should he *not* cancel the penalty (other than in the trivial case in which it would make no difference to the outcome)? As an aside, I don't like Sven's dangerous suggestion that the NOS should be ruled against "particularly if the[ir] action... demonstrates ignorance of the laws". TFLB merely requires that players follow the laws or pay the appropriate penalty for any unintentional infraction; there is nothing in it to suggest that they are required to know the laws (albeit they would be well-advised to). Quite the opposite; we rule (as surely we should!) far more harshly against a player who knows the law and has nevertheless failed to follow it than we do against a player who has violated it out of ignorance. 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 Apr 3 02:20:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32GKVc19311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 02:20:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32GKPH19307 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 02:20:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.235]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTY0025N7JQ1S@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:09:28 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:10:45 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bi To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Message-id: <008e01c1da69$6615a3c0$164c003e@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: <20020402101726-R01050000-D4617F00-4622-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Can the fact that [in your opinion] "otherwise there is no point to 27B1(a) make a *Wrong --Right. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bi > On 4/2/02 at 12:43 AM, john@asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) wrote: > > > and furthermore interpret it for their benefit so they have a clear > > understanding of how the Law pertains to their case. if the players do > > not have this then they shooting in the dark. > > Agreed. But I still say that if the TD's interpretation is that West, having AI > that East has an opening hand, is not allowed to bid game over 2S, when he > *knows* (and is allowed to know) that East does *not* have a normal simple > raise, that's just wrong. Otherwise there's no point to 27B1(a) at all. > > Here's a question: if the TD does rule that way, and you agree with me, and > decide to appeal, is this a matter of TD judgement, or is it a point of law (cf. > L93B3 "the committee may not overrule the Director on a point of 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 02:23:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32GN1n19328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 02:23:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32GMtH19324 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 02:22:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.235]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTY007137O0AE@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:12:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 19:13:45 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Message-id: <009101c1da69$bf963cc0$164c003e@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: <20020402101714-R01050000-CD3A7100-4622-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Good point. Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 5:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 4/2/02 at 7:45 AM, cyaxares@lineone.net (Grattan Endicott) wrote: > > > +=+ In the case cited he does not know this from the insufficient > > bid since he does not know from that alone whether East was > > opening, responding to what he though West had bid, or > > overcalling what he thought RHO had opened. This was cleared > > up by the mannerisms and what was said. +=+ > > Um. Good point. What he *does* know, however, is that 2H, or whatever it was, is > the *only* bid East could make that would allow West to say anything at all. > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or > http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > 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 Wed Apr 3 04:20:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32IJbq19418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 04:19:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep2.012.net.il (fep2.goldenlines.net.il [212.117.129.202]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g32IJUH19414 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 04:19:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.35.214]) by fep2.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020402180250.YCC19750.fep2@zshilon>; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:02:50 +0300 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , "Grattan Endicott" , Cc: "Sven Pran" , "ayala hiler" , "Mark Horton" Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 21:04:46 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1255" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <001e01c1da45$5e4eb6a0$b15f003e@erdnbaum> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk That is the dilemma. I really don't think its ethical, but if the powers that be declare it is ethical, I have to do something. The fact is that my partner HAS made a mistake, and, in the end, as opener, I would pass. My real concern in passing is is it fair to my partner, as the rules seem to allow me to continue bidding. zvika Modiin, Israel -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Israel Erdnbaum Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:53 PM To: Grattan Endicott; Zvi Shilon; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Sven Pran; ayala hiler; Mark Horton Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid You are *being told what's *ethical*.Till yesteday it wasn't ethical ,so what happened? A parenthetical from where? From the Mount of Sinai? Do you [and other BLML's]always do what you *are told? I can understand TD scared of the powers to be ,scared by AC. But as a player Zvi don't you use your judgement about what's ethical? You are being told* so you comply, and how do you feel about it? This is what I asked Eric. All the best Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:16 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > > > > In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he can > > bid > > > on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means > in > > > their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different story. > > The problem is that we are being told that it is ethical to use the > information, and the laws seem to back this up. That is why I agree with > Eric Landau that I would like to see someone come up with a better > interpretation of L27B1(a) and L27B1(b). Before this discussion, in the > actual case, I would not have dreamed of bidding over the correction to 2 > hearts. Now, I am not so sure. To me, that is the real dilemma. As east, > before the discussion, I would have corrected to 4 hearts. Again, now I am > not so sure. > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 05:28:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32JRkj19447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 05:27:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32JReH19443 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 05:27:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.230]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTY002CEG7SR6@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:16:43 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 22:17:57 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Zvi Shilon Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004001c1da83$8e68fa60$e74f003e@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 In my opinion ,and I have already said so , as a player , you have to do whatever the Law allows you to do.As a TD I will advise OS that I will apply Law 27B1[b].Let me compliment you on your courage [unfortunately I think it *needs courage] to say that it is not ethical. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; "Grattan Endicott" ; Cc: "Sven Pran" ; "ayala hiler" ; "Mark Horton" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 9:04 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > That is the dilemma. I really don't think its ethical, but if the powers > that be declare it is ethical, I have to do something. The fact is that my > partner HAS made a mistake, and, in the end, as opener, I would pass. My > real concern in passing is is it fair to my partner, as the rules seem to > allow me to continue bidding. > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Israel Erdnbaum > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 2:53 PM > To: Grattan Endicott; Zvi Shilon; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Cc: Sven Pran; ayala hiler; Mark Horton > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > You are *being told what's *ethical*.Till yesteday it wasn't ethical ,so > what happened? A parenthetical > from where? From the Mount of Sinai? Do you [and other BLML's]always do > what you *are told? > I can understand TD scared of the powers to be ,scared by AC. But as a > player Zvi don't you use your judgement about what's ethical? You are being > told* so you comply, and how do you feel about it? This is what I asked > Eric. > All the best > Israel > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Zvi Shilon" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:16 AM > Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > > > > From: Israel Erdnbaum > > > > > > > In this case I hate this Law just because I have to tell W that he > can > > > bid > > > > on with* the knowledge that partner has a 1H opener, whatever it means > > in > > > > their system. That as a player I would not do it-- is a different > story. > > > > The problem is that we are being told that it is ethical to use the > > information, and the laws seem to back this up. That is why I agree with > > Eric Landau that I would like to see someone come up with a better > > interpretation of L27B1(a) and L27B1(b). Before this discussion, in the > > actual case, I would not have dreamed of bidding over the correction to 2 > > hearts. Now, I am not so sure. To me, that is the real dilemma. As east, > > before the discussion, I would have corrected to 4 hearts. Again, now I am > > not so sure. > > > > zvika > > Modiin, Israel > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 07:06:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32L6P819499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:06:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g32L6KH19495 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:06:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0098.bb.online.no [80.212.208.98]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA12054 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:55:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001e01c1da88$b6b4e380$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D4@al21.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020402080018.00acd140@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020402101534.00a8af00@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A [WAS "or requires its retraction"] Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:55:25 +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: "Eric Landau" > In Sven's generic case, "the opponent has not gained anything..." > indeed. In fact, they have lost something. So Sven is telling us that > we should waive the penalty (I assume that's what he means by "rule > according to L11A") whenever the OS has gained by the NOS's failure to > call the TD, as well as whenever the OS has lost by it, IOW, whenever > the failure to call the TD has made any difference at all in the > result. That reduces L11A to, "The right to penalize an irregularity > shall be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any > action before summoning the Director", period, and the second sentence > becomes meaningless. No, you correctly do not believe that, it is not what the law says, and I'm sorry if I have given reason to believe that is what I wrote: The law says that if any member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the director the director *may* cancel the penalty, and the second sentence strengthens this so that the director should rule so if the non-offending side may have gained ....... HOLD IT! When re-reading I now discovered what I overlooked the first time: (I am surprised nobody has "arrested" me on this) "gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty". That is something else, and in my opinion more severe, it seems to indicate an action by non-offending side after the director has arrived but either before he has announced his ruling or the action is in fact contrary to the ruling in any way? ("Subsequent" to what???) This law was unchanged from 1987 so I looked up Endicott & Hansen commentaries: 11.1: The right to penalize may be forfeited if either non-offender does anything further in respect of that board following an irregularity before calling the Director. That should be clear enough! 11.2: Players may not consult regarding the options of a penalty. If they do, in fact, consult, the right to penalize is forfeited; ..... This comment seems directly related to the second sentence of L11A, a consultation between the NOS players must be one kind of action thought of in that sentence, and the Director then has no choice but to foirfeit the penalty because NOS might otherwises gain from such activity. Makes sense to me. > > I do not believe that. I am certain that L11A allows for circumstances > in which the penalty should not be waived. If the director "so rules > when the NOS may have gained" and also under other circumstances as > well, there must be cases in which the director "so rules" when the NOS > could not have gained, but there must also be cases in which the > director does *not* "so rule" when the NOS could not have gained. I > have yet to see any suggestion as to how one is supposed to distinguish > between these cases. Accepted, and really in line with what I intended to write. The problem was that I overlooked the word "subsequent" in the second sentence. ..... (snip a part that has become redundant?) > As an aside, I don't like Sven's dangerous suggestion that the NOS > should be ruled against "particularly if the[ir] action... demonstrates > ignorance of the laws". On rereading law11 I think a better formulation would be "ignorance of the Directors presence at the table" but the law speaks for itself, at least the way I now see it. regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 07:10:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g32LAnl19511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:10:49 +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 g32LAhH19507 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:10:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0098.bb.online.no [80.212.208.98]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA17062 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:59:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003001c1da89$545f7000$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204011537.KAA02506@cfa183.harvard.edu> <006a01c1da64$4bff6ca0$164c003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:59:46 +0200 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" > Wouldn't it be nice if the *lawmakers would tell us that this why*they > included 27 B1b > Best regards > Israel Todays lawmakers didn't include it. This particular law has been there, essentially unchanged at least since 1975. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 10:03:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3302JH19610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:02:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33029H19602 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:02:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.5.248] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16sXyy-0003Qt-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:46:33 +0100 Message-ID: <001301c1daa1$6183c520$f805e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D4@al21.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020402080018.00acd140@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020402101534.00a8af00@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A [WAS "or requires its retraction"] Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:50:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A [WAS "or requires its retraction"] > At 09:10 AM 4/2/02, Sven wrote: > > >From: "Eric Landau" > > > > > I would very much like to see an example of such > > > circumstances. Without one, we are being told > > > that the second sentence of L11A is equivalent > > > to, "The director must so rule when the non-offending > > > side may have gained through subsequent action > > > taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty, > > > and may so rule whenever else he feels like it." ........ +=+ "when he feels like it" is jaundiced. The assumption should be that the Director is seeking to fulfil the aim of restoring equity and must judge the question. There is something wrong in the player-director relationship where a player exhibits the lack of respect that your words ooze. If you are poorly served where you play that is your local problem; the legislators are not responsible for providing the remedy. ~ 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 Apr 3 10:03:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3302IM19609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:02:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33027H19596 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:02:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.5.248] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16sXyw-0003Qt-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:46:31 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c1daa1$606e0f60$f805e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020402101726-R01050000-D4617F00-4622-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bi Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 00:14:22 +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: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bi > Here's a question: if the TD does rule that way, and > you agree with me, and decide to appeal, is this a > matter of TD judgement, or is it a point of law (cf. > L93B3 "the committee may not overrule the >Director on a point of law")? > +=+ Make the distinction between the meaning of the text of the Law - not a matter in which the AC can overrule the Director - and the judgement how the meaning supplied by the Director applies to the particular actions of the players, a matter for the AC. ~ 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 Apr 3 10:03:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3302IS19608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:02:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33026H19595 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 10:02:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.5.248] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16sXyv-0003Qt-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 00:46:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001101c1daa1$5f630800$f805e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Zvi Shilon" , "Israel Erdnbaum" , Cc: "Sven Pran" , "ayala hiler" , "Mark Horton" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 23:49:15 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; "Grattan Endicott" ; Cc: "Sven Pran" ; "ayala hiler" ; "Mark Horton" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:04 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > That is the dilemma. I really don't think its ethical, > but if the powers that be declare it is ethical, I have to > do something. > +=+ It is not a question of ethical or unethical. It is either legal or illegal. ~ 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 Apr 3 11:28:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g331SKS19665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:28:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g331SEH19661 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:28:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from Arbhuston@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id 7.193.4ce87aa (4207) for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:17:08 -0500 (EST) From: Arbhuston@aol.com Message-ID: <193.4ce87aa.29dbb214@aol.com> Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:17:08 EST Subject: [BLML] BLML - Insufficient bid. 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 Let's see if I have this right. Under L16 (1st paragraph), "Players are authorized to base their calls...on information from legal calls..., and from mannerisms from the opponents." Hence information from an illegal call by one's partner may not serve as the basis of a call. When a call is withdrawn for insufficiency and L27B is invoked IBer's partner will not be required to pass thereafter under the circumstances of L27B1. L27B1 requires that the auction proceed "as though the irregularity had not occurred." That means that any information gained by the OS from knowledge of the insufficient call is barred from use in the subsequent auction, else it would not be "as though the irregulrity had not occurred." However, in judging whether information gained from the insufficient call has injured the NOS, the standards for UI in L16C2 will not apply. Instead the standard in L27B1b will be used. Injury could occur at any time that partner of IBer uses information from the insufficient call to his side's advantage. Hence, when partner of IBer bids beyond 2H in the example, he is improving his side's position and thereby damaging the NOS's result. So, it seems that for the people who bid beyond 2H, there should be an adjustment back to 2H +some number of tricks. Is this the summary that I should be understanding? Michael -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 12:40:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g332e9a19724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:40:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g332e5H19720 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:40:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:29:15 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:47:28 -0600 To: BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2002 02:29:15.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[59424470:01C1DAB7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If we leave the realm of the hypothetical, we can consider: Last night's club game (only four tables) went pretty smoothly until the end of the seventh of nine rounds, when I realized we had started that round by shuffling a set of boards. Whoops, those boards would never get played four times in three rounds! Sure enough, at the start of the next round our opponents said they had already played the boards we were scheduled to play against them. At the end of the session, the Director asked me to help her straighten things out. I scored the boards that were not played four times, factored them up to the 3 (US-style) matchpoint tops, and did the averages on the boards we missed playing. Later, I explained tp her how to factor the total scores of those who had not played the set that was played only three times. (They stayed in the last two places, anyway.) Here we had a case where one might give those who did not get to play those boards average plus, except I think most would agree that when a pair doesn't get to play a set because they are busy playing a wrong set, they really don't deserve more than average. It is really hard to fault anyone entirely for this mess. One pair who played the wrong boards are two novices who hardly know enough to avoid the problem (they played the same boards twice, once NS, once EW.) Someone had left the boards on the table instead of taking them off at the end of the previous round, and their oponents (careless!) did not think to check board numbers against the guide card. We lost the opportunity to score well against one of the pairs who had played the wrong boards, so only got average plus, not enough to take us from second to first. :( I got started for home at 11:25 PM. :( :( :( :( Fortunately, it's only a five minute drive. :) 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 Wed Apr 3 14:16:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g334FDT19784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:15:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g334F7H19780 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:15:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.74.149]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTZ0098L4MYNG@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 07:04:12 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 07:05:24 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Cc: Herman De Wael , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001501c1dacd$3d03e1e0$b05f003e@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: <200204011537.KAA02506@cfa183.harvard.edu> <006a01c1da64$4bff6ca0$164c003e@erdnbaum> <003001c1da89$545f7000$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thank you Sven for pointing out ,that I asked the wrong question,so I can try again. Wouldn't it be nice if the * law makers would tell us if by the parenthetical in Law 27B1[a] they intended that the information passed by 1H--P--1H! Oh! I didn't see you opened * should now be AI. And if not ,can we [should we] apply 27B1b? BTW Sven ,if you are in contact with Keith Hansen ,please give him my regards. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > Wouldn't it be nice if the *lawmakers would tell us that this why*they > > included 27 B1b > > Best regards > > Israel > > Todays lawmakers didn't include it. > This particular law has been there, essentially unchanged at least > since 1975. > > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 14:23:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g334MwW19806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:22:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g334MqH19802 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.74.149]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTZ009F84ZTK9@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 07:11:57 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 07:13:38 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Robert E. Harris" Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001801c1dace$51191140$b05f003e@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 Was it their fault that they played wrong boards ? If not tell me please *why shouldn't they get A+ *?* Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert E. Harris" To: "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:47 AM Subject: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... > If we leave the realm of the hypothetical, we can consider: > > Last night's club game (only four tables) went pretty smoothly until the > end of the seventh of nine rounds, when I realized we had started that > round by shuffling a set of boards. Whoops, those boards would never get > played four times in three rounds! Sure enough, at the start of the next > round our opponents said they had already played the boards we were > scheduled to play against them. > > At the end of the session, the Director asked me to help her straighten > things out. I scored the boards that were not played four times, factored > them up to the 3 (US-style) matchpoint tops, and did the averages on the > boards we missed playing. Later, I explained tp her how to factor the > total scores of those who had not played the set that was played only three > times. (They stayed in the last two places, anyway.) > > Here we had a case where one might give those who did not get to play those > boards average plus, except I think most would agree that when a pair > doesn't get to play a set because they are busy playing a wrong set, they > really don't deserve more than average. > > It is really hard to fault anyone entirely for this mess. One pair who > played the wrong boards are two novices who hardly know enough to avoid the > problem (they played the same boards twice, once NS, once EW.) Someone had > left the boards on the table instead of taking them off at the end of the > previous round, and their oponents (careless!) did not think to check board > numbers against the guide card. > > We lost the opportunity to score well against one of the pairs who had > played the wrong boards, so only got average plus, not enough to take us > from second to first. :( > > I got started for home at 11:25 PM. :( :( :( :( > > Fortunately, it's only a five minute drive. :) > > REH > Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 > Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia > Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 14:29:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g334TDK19827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:29:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g334T7H19823 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 14:29:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.74.149]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTZ004755A88M@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 07:18:09 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 07:19:56 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Grattan Endicott Message-id: <002b01c1dacf$322bc7e0$b05f003e@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: <001101c1daa1$5f630800$f805e150@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Can't legal be unethical? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Zvi Shilon" ; "Israel Erdnbaum" ; Cc: "Sven Pran" ; "ayala hiler" ; "Mark Horton" Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 12:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > The gain from voting with the minority is not > only that you are more likely to be right but > also that no-one can blame you afterwards > for the result. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Zvi Shilon" > To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; > "Grattan Endicott" ; > > Cc: "Sven Pran" ; > "ayala hiler" ; > "Mark Horton" > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 8:04 PM > Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > That is the dilemma. I really don't think its ethical, > > but if the powers that be declare it is ethical, I have to > > do something. > > > +=+ It is not a question of ethical or unethical. It is > either legal or illegal. ~ 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 Apr 3 15:17:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g335H5H19904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:17:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep2.012.net.il (fep2.goldenlines.net.il [212.117.129.202]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g335GxH19900 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:17:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from zshilon ([212.199.35.214]) by fep2.012.net.il with SMTP id <20020403050025.BRFQ19750.fep2@zshilon>; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 08:00:25 +0300 From: "Zvi Shilon" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , , "Grattan Endicott" Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:59:28 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <002b01c1dacf$322bc7e0$b05f003e@erdnbaum> 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 Israel Erdnbaum Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:20 AM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Grattan Endicott Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Can't legal be unethical? ==================== I am also struggling with this question. Perhaps that is the heart of the matter. zvika Modiin, Israel -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 16:58:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g336vKK19970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:57:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g336v9H19966 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:57:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.25.121] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16seSZ-0007jF-00; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 07:41:32 +0100 Message-ID: <004601c1dadb$5ae47860$7919e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Zvi Shilon" , "Israel Erdnbaum" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 07:45:01 +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: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; ; "Grattan Endicott" Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 6:59 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Can't legal be unethical? > ==================== > I am also struggling with this question. Perhaps > that is the heart of the matter. > > zvika > Modiin, Israel > +=+ The laws define how the game is played. If the laws authorize an action then to do it is legal. How can that be unethical? But, whatever else, it is Illegal to make use of the information that is learnt from the remark "Oh, I didn't realize you had opened". That is not covered by 27B1(a) which relates only to information from the withdrawn action. ~ 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 Apr 3 21:46:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33BjP120109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:45:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33BjJH20105 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:45:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.207]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTZ00571PH5N1@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:34:20 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:36:05 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Fw: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Eric Landau , Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: David Stevenson , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001201c1db0c$21150240$cf4f003e@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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: "Zvi Shilon" Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > It is the heart of the matter for the referee who has to rule.As far as the > player is concerned ,he is playing to win ,and he ows it to his partner to > do everything [as long as it's legal]and use every loophole in the Law for > this purpose. > As far as the referee is concerned he *must rule accordin to the letter of > the Law,but IMHO he should use every loophole in the Law to give redress to > the NOS- In this case by using 27B1b. > Of course if he intends to do so he is obliged to spell it out clearly when > he explains to E his options and their possible consequences. > Best regards > Israel > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Zvi Shilon" > To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; > ; "Grattan Endicott" > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:59 AM > 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 Israel Erdnbaum > > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:20 AM > > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Grattan Endicott > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > Can't legal be unethical? > > ==================== > > I am also struggling with this question. Perhaps that is the heart of the > > matter. > > > > zvika > > Modiin, Israel > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 3 21:54:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33Brog20131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:53:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33BriH20127 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:53:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.50]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTZ00B9RPV7HW@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:42:46 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:43:51 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Grattan Endicott Cc: ayala hiler , Herman De Wael , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002001c1db0d$4c13ac20$325f003e@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: <004601c1dadb$5ae47860$7919e150@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks god *you don't have to *rule at the table. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Zvi Shilon" ; "Israel Erdnbaum" ; Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "My mind is in a state of philosophical doubt," > ~ S.T. Coleridge > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Zvi Shilon" > To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; > ; > "Grattan Endicott" > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 6:59 AM > Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > > Can't legal be unethical? > > ==================== > > I am also struggling with this question. Perhaps > > that is the heart of the matter. > > > > zvika > > Modiin, Israel > > > +=+ The laws define how the game is played. If the > laws authorize an action then to do it is legal. How > can that be unethical? But, whatever else, it is Illegal > to make use of the information that is learnt from > the remark "Oh, I didn't realize you had opened". > That is not covered by 27B1(a) which relates only > to information from the withdrawn action. > ~ 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 Apr 3 21:59:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33BxdK20143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:59:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33BxXH20139 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:59:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.50]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GTZ00BGJQ50H2@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:48:38 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 14:50:20 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002301c1db0e$1e28cce0$325f003e@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: <20020403034928-R01050000-CC065400-46B5-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Has paid thir penalty"?* give me a break. Obeying orders is also always *ethical ?? All the best Israel erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > Can't legal be unethical? > > My understanding is that what is ethical in Duplicate Contract Bridge is defined > by the laws of the game. That being the case, my answer would be no. > > Also, there is this: "Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the > prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the > offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they > thereby appear to profit through their own infraction." -- Law 72A5. > > 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 Apr 3 23:51:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33Doxk20295 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 23:50:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33DorH20291 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 23:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16skza-0000P1-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 08:40:02 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020403082227.00b99750@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 08:41:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A [WAS "or requires its retraction"] In-Reply-To: <001301c1daa1$6183c520$f805e150@dodona> References: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21D4@al21.minfod.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020402080018.00acd140@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020402101534.00a8af00@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 06:50 PM 4/2/02, Grattan wrote: > > >From: "Eric Landau" > > > > > > > I would very much like to see an example of such > > > > circumstances. Without one, we are being told > > > > that the second sentence of L11A is equivalent > > > > to, "The director must so rule when the non-offending > > > > side may have gained through subsequent action > > > > taken by an opponent in ignorance of the penalty, > > > > and may so rule whenever else he feels like it." > >+=+ "when he feels like it" is jaundiced. The assumption >should be that the Director is seeking to fulfil the aim of >restoring equity and must judge the question. There >is something wrong in the player-director relationship >where a player exhibits the lack of respect that your >words ooze. If you are poorly served where you play >that is your local problem; the legislators are not >responsible for providing the remedy. Perhaps I chose my words poorly; I could just as easily have written "whenever else he deems it appropriate". But when the law gives no guidance as to when he should do so, no example of when he might do so, and no suggestion as to what particular objective he should be trying to accomplish by doing so, I see no operational difference between the two formulations. To say that it is implicit that his objective is (nothing more than) to "achieve equity" is meaninglessly circular, as that is the stated objective of the laws; it is the individual laws themselves that he must rely on to tell him how to do that. JFTR, where I play (Washington DC area), we are actually very well served by our local TDs, but also very much aware that we are highly atypical of the ACBL in that respect. (That is neither a personal nor a parochial view, but a widespread consensus among knowledgeable players and officials ACBL-wide.) 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 Apr 4 03:23:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33HL2p20483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 03:21:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33HKuH20479 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 03:20:57 +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 g33HA0M24640; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:10:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:03:29 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Israel Erdnbaum , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002301c1db0e$1e28cce0$325f003e@erdnbaum> Message-ID: <20020403121005-R01050000-BB78CC81-46FB-11D6-9D5E-71E91015145A-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 > Obeying orders is also always *ethical ?? We're judging a *game*, not war crimes. This thread has gone a bit far, I think, if we're down to comments like this. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and let the lawmakers do what they will in 2005, or whenever the next revision will be. 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 Apr 4 03:23:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33HNa420497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 03:23:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g33HNUH20493 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 03:23:31 +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 MAA01637 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:12:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA00068 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:12:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:12:40 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204031712.MAA00068@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] BLML - Insufficient bid. X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Arbhuston@aol.com > Let's see if I have this right. Under L16 (1st paragraph), "Players are > authorized to base their calls...on information from legal calls..., and from > mannerisms from the opponents." Yes. > Hence information from an illegal call by > one's partner may not serve as the basis of a call. Clearly wrong. If this were correct, one could not base one's call or play on the cards one holds nor on other withdrawn actions, which are just two items not mentioned. The latter is not correct per L16C1. The correct statement is that for items not mentioned at the beginning of L16, one has to look elsewhere. It is easier to see this in the 1987 Laws, where the withdrawn action was specifically made AI. However, the early part of L16 has not changed, so there is no reason to believe its meaning has changed. > So, it seems that for the people who bid beyond > 2H, there should be an adjustment back to 2H +some number of tricks. Again I ask, what is the irregularity that L12C2 mentions if not the IB itself? Another question: how would you have ruled prior to 1997? If not the same as now, what change in the Laws makes the difference? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 08:31:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33MUH420617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:30:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33MUBH20613 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:30:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:19:20 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001801c1dace$51191140$b05f003e@erdnbaum> References: Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:37:34 -0600 To: Israel Erdnbaum , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Apr 2002 22:19:20.0651 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A13B9B0:01C1DB5D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Was it their fault that they played wrong boards ? If not tell me please >*why shouldn't they get A+ *?* We had a failure to follow the Director's instructions ("follow the guide cards instructions", Law 8A1) since the wrong boards were played. So far as I can find, the Laws do not specifiy who is particularly responsible to see that the right boards are played at the table, aside from this. They got the scores they earned the first time they played the wrong boards (Law 15A) but the scores they got the second time were canceled (Law 15B). To my way of thinking, the people who were deprived of the right to earn scores on the set of boards they should have played when they were playing the wrong boards do not deserve more than average on the boards they missed playing (they are not non-offending mentioned in Law 88.) They missed playing those boards by playing the wrong boards, and it was too late at night to have them play the right set later. In effect they got the scores on those boards that were the average of their scores on the 24 boards they did play, when really they should not get more than 40%. They actually got a little more than this, as it turned out. We had a failure to move the boards from the table at the end of the round by the previous North player (Law 8A2.) Their guilt remains unmpunished in this case. (I was not Director, just an advisor.) I am asking the Director to tell people that North is responsible for moving the boards at the end of each round. REH >Best regards >Israel Erdenbaum >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert E. Harris" >To: "BLML" >Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:47 AM >Subject: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... > > >> If we leave the realm of the hypothetical, we can consider: >> >> Last night's club game (only four tables) went pretty smoothly until the >> end of the seventh of nine rounds, when I realized we had started that >> round by shuffling a set of boards. Whoops, those boards would never get >> played four times in three rounds! Sure enough, at the start of the next >> round our opponents said they had already played the boards we were >> scheduled to play against them. >> >> At the end of the session, the Director asked me to help her straighten >> things out. I scored the boards that were not played four times, factored >> them up to the 3 (US-style) matchpoint tops, and did the averages on the >> boards we missed playing. Later, I explained tp her how to factor the >> total scores of those who had not played the set that was played only >three >> times. (They stayed in the last two places, anyway.) >> >> Here we had a case where one might give those who did not get to play >those >> boards average plus, except I think most would agree that when a pair >> doesn't get to play a set because they are busy playing a wrong set, they >> really don't deserve more than average. >> >> It is really hard to fault anyone entirely for this mess. One pair who >> played the wrong boards are two novices who hardly know enough to avoid >the >> problem (they played the same boards twice, once NS, once EW.) Someone >had >> left the boards on the table instead of taking them off at the end of the >> previous round, and their oponents (careless!) did not think to check >board >> numbers against the guide card. >> >> We lost the opportunity to score well against one of the pairs who had >> played the wrong boards, so only got average plus, not enough to take us >> from second to first. :( >> >> I got started for home at 11:25 PM. :( :( :( :( >> >> Fortunately, it's only a five minute drive. :) >> >> 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/ Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 08:40:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33MeLE20636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:40:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g33MeFH20632 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:40:15 +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 RAA18203 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:29:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA02469 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:29:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:29:23 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204032229.RAA02469@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Robert E. Harris" > I am asking the Director to tell people that North is responsible for > moving the boards at the end of each round. This is OK, but IMHO, if there is a guide card on the table, all four players are responsible for verifying that the correct boards are about to be played. Still, it's a fine idea for there to be two separate steps: the previous North puts the "used" boards on the side table, and the new North retrieves the correct boards for the upcoming round. Then the other three players check North's work. :-) It can be helpful for the Director to announce the round number when calling each move. But the careless players won't listen to that, either. :-( -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 09:05:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33N5Nb20670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:05:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g33N5IH20666 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:05:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from user-1120o02.dsl.mindspring.com ([66.32.96.2] helo=davishi) by granger.mail.mindspring.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 16ste5-00039c-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Apr 2002 17:54:25 -0500 Message-ID: <001501c1db62$77763cc0$0a01a8c0@davishi> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <20020403034928-R01050000-CC065400-46B5-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <002301c1db0e$1e28cce0$325f003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 17:54:09 -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: ; "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > "Has paid thir penalty"?* give me a > break. Obeying orders is also always *ethical ?? > All the best > Israel erdenbaum To reinforce what Ed said, please repeat several times until understood: "Bridge is only a game." A game is defined by its rules. In the case of duplicate bridge, those rules are the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, along with local regulations made within those Laws. There may be rules that we don't like, rules that are difficult if not impossible to interpret, and rules that are genuinely bad and need changing. However, should a TD go outside of the Laws (as he understands them) in order to make rulings, the game being played is no longer bridge. The Laws Committee, under the auspices of the WBF, has the authority to alter the rules of the game. The TD does not. 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 Thu Apr 4 09:21:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g33NLh620690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:21:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g33NLcH20686 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:21:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.75.189]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU00081VLPN98@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 02:10:37 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 02:11:56 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] To: Ed Reppert , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000c01c1db6d$663d5be0$bd4b003e@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_Mn8Iy4/vD/9TZ58KgN9AEA)" 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_Mn8Iy4/vD/9TZ58KgN9AEA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I've just seen Grattan Endicott's post citing 1C---P---1C as a case where the IB can lead to damage to the NOS :so the TD applies 27B1{b}. 1H---P---1H*Oh! [opening bid] is much more damaging. The TD shouldn't advise players what calls they may or may not make ,but it is his duty to explain the options they have. 27B1[b] being his option he should explain this too. Any* action allowed by the Law is for the player *ethical. Is every Law Ethical ? I assume you all know the story of the judge who having no choice but to fine a hungry man for stealing a loaf of bread, fined him 1$ ,and paid it from his own pocket. --Boundary_(ID_Mn8Iy4/vD/9TZ58KgN9AEA) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
I've just seen Grattan Endicott's post citing  1C---P---1C as a case where the IB can lead to damage to the NOS :so the TD applies 27B1{b}.
1H---P---1H*Oh! [opening bid] is much more damaging.
The TD shouldn't advise players what calls they may or may not make ,but it is his duty to
explain the options they have. 27B1[b] being his option he should explain this too.
Any* action allowed by the Law is for the player *ethical.
 
Is every Law Ethical ? I assume you all know the story of the judge who having no choice but to fine a hungry man for stealing a loaf of bread, fined him 1$ ,and paid it from his own pocket.
 
--Boundary_(ID_Mn8Iy4/vD/9TZ58KgN9AEA)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 10:14:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g340EKI20737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:14:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g340EGH20733 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:14:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA08093; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:16:14 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:01:12 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: cyaxares@lineone.net.gov.au Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:56:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 04/04/2002 10:01:07 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum wrote: [snip] >Is every Law ethical? I assume you all know the story >of the judge who, having no choice but to fine a hungry >man for stealing a loaf of bread, fined him $1, and >paid it from his own pocket. I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. The current rule, which applies the bar to conventional insufficient bids (or conventional corrections) only, seems inadequate. My mooted change to Law 27 would also reduce the number of times a TD would have to ask the can-of-worms question: "What is a 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 Thu Apr 4 11:23:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g341NT020791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:23:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g341NNH20787 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:23:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from 209-193-12-141-dial-en6.fai.acsalaska.net (209-193-12-141-dial-en6.fai.acsalaska.net [209.193.12.141]) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g341CSD15323 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:12:29 -0900 (AKST) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:13:02 -0900 (Alaskan Standard Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) 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 Thu, 4 Apr 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > I second this idea, although I would prefer the more lenient "offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call", in the case of an insufficient bid corrected to the minimum sufficient bid in the same denomination. This parallels the construction of L31, and the same logic that supports L31 would support this variant of L27. There is no question of how the substitute is to be interpreted -- it must be natural, since it is very likely to end the auction. By repeating the denomination of the insufficient bid, most of the information conveyed by the IB is conveyed by the replacement. It would not be too damaging to allow partner back into the auction if it continues. -- Michael Schmahl, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA "I never was particularly good at math." "I noticed," said the demon as it stepped out of the hexagram. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 11:49:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g341nUV20817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:49:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g341nOH20813 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:49:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g341dk532002 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:39:46 -0900 Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 16:36:37 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Michael Schmahl wrote: > On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > > > I second this idea, although I would prefer the more lenient "offender's > partner must pass when next it is his turn to call", in the case of an > insufficient bid corrected to the minimum sufficient bid in the same > denomination. > > This parallels the construction of L31, and the same logic that supports > L31 would support this variant of L27. There is no question of how the > substitute is to be interpreted -- it must be natural, since it is very > likely to end the auction. By repeating the denomination of the > insufficient bid, most of the information conveyed by the IB is conveyed > by the replacement. It would not be too damaging to allow partner back > into the auction if it continues. I agree with the idea that it would be sensible for L27 and L31 to be similar. Of course, if some of us were given the choice, we'd want to simplify L31 in the same way as L27, and replace L31A2-and-L31B with "offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call." But that gets back into the style issues we've discussed many times in the past, of whether we'd rather have all the laws equity-based or more mechanical and judgment-free. 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 Apr 4 17:16:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g347F0Z21165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:15:01 +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 g347EsH21161 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:14:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48125.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.253]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g34740r00747 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:04:00 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CABFB16.1030907@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:04:54 +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] General Review of the Laws (was 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 Now this is a typical blml reaction. Someone spots a law that has a strange conssequence, that no-one, in over 20 years has ever spotted. Then we start discussing it for a long time, in an interesting manner. Then we continue discussing it for three times as long again. Then someone decides that this is a major problem, and he thinks it a good idea to change the law so that this is solved. Thereby changing a law that works perfectly well in 99.999% of the case into an abomination that can hardly be called equitable. I'm voting a very strong NOOOOOOO to this suggestion. I hope other sanee people will do the same. richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > [snip] > > >>Is every Law ethical? I assume you all know the story >>of the judge who, having no choice but to fine a hungry >>man for stealing a loaf of bread, fined him $1, and >>paid it from his own pocket. >> > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > The current rule, which applies the bar to conventional > insufficient bids (or conventional corrections) only, > seems inadequate. > > My mooted change to Law 27 would also reduce the number > of times a TD would have to ask the can-of-worms question: > "What is a convention?" :-) > > Best wishes > > Richard > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 17:42:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g347fh821189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:41:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com (mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.worldonline.com [212.74.112.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g347fZH21181 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:41:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.71.127] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16t1hO-0006T0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 08:30:23 +0100 Message-ID: <004401c1dbaa$b9e4fe00$b3a1403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:29:22 +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: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Michael Schmahl wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > > > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > > > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > > > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > > ............. \x/ .............. > > I agree with the idea that it would be sensible for L27 and > L31 to be similar. ---------------------- \x/ ---------------- > > Of course, if some of us were given the choice, we'd want > to simplify L31 in the same way as L27, and replace L31A2 > -and-L31B with "offender's partner must pass whenever it > is his turn to call." > ............. \x/ .............. > +=+ The Sagacious* Seven have now set upon the work of the General Review, although Zones still have until May 17 to make submissions. Surprise, surprise, our first target is Law 25 - discussion as yet incomplete. But 25B will be dumped unless there is an unexpected ambush along the track. ~ G ~ +=+ [ *Any alliterative allusion answers] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 17:42:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g347fhB21188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:41:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g347fYH21179 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:41:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.71.127] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16t1hN-0006T0-00; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 08:30:21 +0100 Message-ID: <004301c1dbaa$b8fa01c0$b3a1403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200204032229.RAA02469@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 08:28:31 +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: Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... > > From: "Robert E. Harris" > > This is OK, but IMHO, if there is a guide card on the table, all > four players are responsible for verifying that the correct > boards are about to be played. +=+ Noted for General Review ~ 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 Apr 4 17:55:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g347sO721213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:54:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g347sIH21209 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:54:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2127.bb.online.no [80.212.216.79]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA26626; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:43:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006101c1dbac$6429bf80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <004401c1dbaa$b9e4fe00$b3a1403e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:43:19 +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" ..... > +=+ The Sagacious* Seven have now set upon the work of > the General Review, although Zones still have until May 17 > to make submissions. Surprise, surprise, our first target is > Law 25 - discussion as yet incomplete. But 25B will be > dumped unless there is an unexpected ambush along the > track. ~ G ~ +=+ And thanks for that! (The only pity is that we shall no longer be able to watch the faces of astonished players who believe we are joking when we "offer" a change of call under this law.) regards Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 19:05:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3492aq21279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:02:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3492UH21275 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:02:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g348pRH20023 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:51:27 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Apr 04 10:47:46 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KG5VQN3U8G0016L3@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:50:53 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:50:34 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:50:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > I agree with the idea that it would be sensible for L27 and > > L31 to be similar. > ---------------------- \x/ ---------------- > > > > Of course, if some of us were given the choice, we'd want > > to simplify L31 in the same way as L27, and replace L31A2 > > -and-L31B with "offender's partner must pass whenever it > > is his turn to call." > > > ............. \x/ .............. > > > +=+ The Sagacious* Seven have now set upon the work of > the General Review, although Zones still have until May 17 > to make submissions. Surprise, surprise, our first target is > Law 25 - discussion as yet incomplete. But 25B will be > dumped unless there is an unexpected ambush along the > track. ~ G ~ +=+ We better start deciding how to communicate with the outer world about our progress. This seems a somewhat uncontroled, and for me unexpected way. Triumph reigning? 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 Apr 4 19:40:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g349eaE21322 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:40:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g349eVH21318 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:40:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2127.bb.online.no [80.212.216.79]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA11580 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:29:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00c501c1dbbb$3b3b64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Submissions" Subject: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:29:31 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Law 20: "full explanation" includes explanation of relevant calls available but not made. A "full description" of a transfer bid obviously includes (or implies) the response itself. What about a "full description" of for instance Flint - 3D after a 2NT opening bid. This asks the opener to bid 3H after which the response hand may pass or continue. The conventional response by opener of 3S is a demand call for 4H in case the Flint bidder intended to play in Hearts, and suggests pass in case the Flint bidder intended to just correct to 3S. Should the 3S "possible - and in case conventional response" to Flint 3D be included in a complete explanation of Flint? A similar situation often occurs with the "Multi" opening in 2D: The conventional response in 2S (instead of the "normal" response in 2H) is an invitation to 4H in case the opener has a weak 2H opening hand, and suggests pass when the opener has a weak 2S opening hand. These are just a few examples of when a "full explanation" may or might not include possible future calls in the auction, and my question for clarification is: To what extent (if any) should "full explanation" include responses to (conventional) calls before such resonse is actually made? A matter for further clarification of law 20? 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 Apr 4 19:44:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g349iiu21338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:44:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g349icH21334 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:44:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.139]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU100AE4EJZ47@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:33:37 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:35:23 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] To: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Sven Pran , Steve Willner , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001301c1dbc4$6e6a0780$8b4f003e@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: <20020403190145-R01050000-3DD1B280-4735-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I really don't care under what Law as long as someone can prevent damage to the NOS. The damage caused to the ethics by the parenthetical in Law 27B1[a] in these specific cases - is another cup of tea. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] > On 4/4/02, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > >I've just seen Grattan Endicott's post citing 1C---P---1C as a case where the IB can > >lead to damage to the NOS :so the TD applies 27B1{b}. > >1H---P---1H*Oh! [opening bid] is much more damaging. > > Maybe so, but the latter case should be ruled under Law 16A, not 27B1(b). > > > 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 Apr 4 19:57:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g349uhY21351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:56:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g349ubH21347 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:56:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.64]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU100AL1F3Y4B@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:45:36 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:46:51 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) To: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, richard.hills@immi.gov.au Cc: Eric Landau , Herman De Wael , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001e01c1dbc6$1aec8400$8b4f003e@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 Let me point out that changing Laws may be pretty dangerous [see the parenthetical] .I take off my hat to the hard working Law makers in the apparently impossible task of foreseeing everything. But it would be nice if they would be 'big' enough to admit there is a problem,and openly try to remedy it *now. Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 1:56 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > > Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > [snip] > > >Is every Law ethical? I assume you all know the story > >of the judge who, having no choice but to fine a hungry > >man for stealing a loaf of bread, fined him $1, and > >paid it from his own pocket. > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > The current rule, which applies the bar to conventional > insufficient bids (or conventional corrections) only, > seems inadequate. > > My mooted change to Law 27 would also reduce the number > of times a TD would have to ask the can-of-worms question: > "What is a 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 19:59:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g349xPY21363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:59:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g349xJH21359 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:59:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g349mQH10035 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:48:26 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Apr 04 11:44:45 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KG5XQIKA2O0016NB@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:48:03 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:47:43 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:48:00 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: FW: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) 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 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Kooijman, A. Verzonden: donderdag 4 april 2002 10:46 Aan: 'Herman De Wael' Onderwerp: RE: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) herman: > > Now this is a typical blml reaction. > > Someone spots a law that has a strange consequence, that no-one, in > over 20 years has ever spotted. that sounds typically blml as well. tell me what we didn't spot over 20 years please? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 20:00:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34A0QU21380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:00:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34A0KH21376 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:00:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g349nQH10366 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:49:27 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Apr 04 11:45:45 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KG5XRO1QVM0016NA@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:48:59 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:48:39 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 11:48:56 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: FW: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) 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 -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: Kooijman, A. Verzonden: donderdag 4 april 2002 9:05 Aan: 'richard.hills@immi.gov.au'; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au CC: cyaxares@lineone.net.gov.au Onderwerp: RE: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > > Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > [snip] > > >Is every Law ethical? I assume you all know the story > >of the judge who, having no choice but to fine a hungry > >man for stealing a loaf of bread, fined him $1, and > >paid it from his own pocket. > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > The current rule, which applies the bar to conventional > insufficient bids (or conventional corrections) only, > seems inadequate. I deem this law inadequate indeed, it should say something as : if the insufficient call is replaced by a call with a comparable meaning the auction continues as if ..... Or: the call must be replaced by a pass or a sufficient bid and Information arising from the insufficient call is unauthorized for partner. Both suggestions well in line with the scope of the laws, don't you think? Your solution is comparable with banning cars because people tend to drive faster than they are allowed to. ton > > My mooted change to Law 27 would also reduce the number > of times a TD would have to ask the can-of-worms question: > "What is a convention?" :-) That is a question I never have asked at the table, so reducing what? Don't tell me I am not a TD then. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 20:23:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34AN6k21405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34AN0H21401 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:23:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA21928; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:09:28 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA18918; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:12:06 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404121127.00a64ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:17:15 +0200 To: Michael Schmahl , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <004f01c1d8aa$2cb23140$9bdff1c3@tkooij> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:39 30/03/2002 -0900, you wrote: >On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > Last week in my club: > > >[...] > > > > K73 > > KQ5 > > QJ73 > > 852 > > >[...] >[Auction 2NT - 4NT! - 6S; 4NT was explained as "5 spades and 4 hearts"] > >Obviously, after the explanation, 6NT is suggested over pass. The only >question to be resolved is whether pass is a logical alternative. > >That depends in part on the interpretation of "logical alternative" that >applies in the case. IIRC some jurisdictions deem an action to be a LA if >a certain proportion of peers of the player would seriously consider >that, while other jurisdictions deem an action to be a LA if some players >would take that action. If "seriously consider" is the standard, then I >think there is no question; pass is a LA. AG : pass is a LA ; it might even be the right decision. Say 2NT is 20-22, 5-card major possible (more or less standard, I'd say). Obviously, 4NT was intended as quantitative. Now imagine opener's hand is : AQJxx - AJ - Axxx - AJ. I would gladly open this 2NT rather than try 1S and pray. Over 4NT, the top-heavy hand and good suit would incite me into bidding 6S - quite rightly so ! Why should partner, "knowing" I've got such a hand, take out to 6NT, which is doomed ? 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 Apr 4 20:23:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34ANqR21417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:23:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34ANkH21413 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:23:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2127.bb.online.no [80.212.216.79]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA10669 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:12:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00d501c1dbc1$460b47c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:12:48 +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 From: "Kooijman, A." ..... > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > > > The current rule, which applies the bar to conventional > > insufficient bids (or conventional corrections) only, > > seems inadequate. As far as I know this law has evolved from the basic rule that a player who (accidently) raises partners bid insufficiently shall be allowed to raise it sufficiently with no consequence as there really has been no extraneous information. (Any other correction of an insufficient bid resulted in the penalty that partner had to pass for the rest of that auction). Do we really want to "close this door"? However, I would welcome a rule that all information from the illegal (insufficient) bid should be explicitly unauthorized for the offender's partner. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 20:27:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34AR9N21429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:27:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34AR3H21425 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:27:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g34AGB328611 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:16:11 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:16 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) 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: > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. May I beg the powers that be to take a completely different approach. Namely. 1) Do away with *all* mechanical penalties in the auction/play regardless of whether the insufficient bid (or it's replacement) is conventional. 2) Make it clear that any information arising from the withdrawn call (or action surrounding it) is UI (to OS) subject to 73C (and rulings using the usual laws for such adjustments) and that it is AI to the OS. New "short form" L27 to be eg: L27. If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid, a pass, or a legal double/redouble. The auction should continue normally subject to the restrictions in L16C. Obviously PPs could be issued if "underbidding" becomes a problem and the usual "could have known" adjustments can be made where appropriate. 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 Apr 4 20:37:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34AbJB21447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:37:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34AbBH21442 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:37:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.40]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU100H6QGZKK2@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:26:15 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:27:52 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Gordon Bower Cc: Ed Reppert , Eric Landau , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003401c1dbcb$c665f820$8b4f003e@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 Mechanical Laws are the *ultimate in *equity. Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Michael Schmahl wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > > > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > > > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > > > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > > > > > > I second this idea, although I would prefer the more lenient "offender's > > partner must pass when next it is his turn to call", in the case of an > > insufficient bid corrected to the minimum sufficient bid in the same > > denomination. > > > > This parallels the construction of L31, and the same logic that supports > > L31 would support this variant of L27. There is no question of how the > > substitute is to be interpreted -- it must be natural, since it is very > > likely to end the auction. By repeating the denomination of the > > insufficient bid, most of the information conveyed by the IB is conveyed > > by the replacement. It would not be too damaging to allow partner back > > into the auction if it continues. > > I agree with the idea that it would be sensible for L27 and L31 to be > similar. > > Of course, if some of us were given the choice, we'd want to simplify L31 > in the same way as L27, and replace L31A2-and-L31B with "offender's > partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call." > > But that gets back into the style issues we've discussed many times in the > past, of whether we'd rather have all the laws equity-based or more > mechanical and judgment-free. > > 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 Apr 4 20:37:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34AbHR21446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:37:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34Ab9H21438 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:37:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.40]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU100H6QGZKK2@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:26:12 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:21:41 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Hirsch Davis Cc: Eric Landau , Ed Reppert , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003101c1dbcb$c41c0820$8b4f003e@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: <20020403034928-R01050000-CC065400-46B5-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <002301c1db0e$1e28cce0$325f003e@erdnbaum> <001501c1db62$77763cc0$0a01a8c0@davishi> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bridge is only* a game " I preached this [probably before you and Ed started playing bridge} but does that mean you don't need *ethics. In my humble opinion on the contrary. I made an unfortunate remark [I wonder there are so few of them {I hope}] so I did not apologise,but I sent a post which clarified my position,on the question of ethics , which in this case is important much more than the ruling in this particular case. Best regards Israel Erdenbaum ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > To: ; "Ed Reppert" > Cc: "Israel Erdenbaum" > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:50 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > "Has paid thir penalty"?* give me a > > break. Obeying orders is also always *ethical ?? > > All the best > > Israel erdenbaum > > > To reinforce what Ed said, please repeat several times until understood: > "Bridge is only a game." > > A game is defined by its rules. In the case of duplicate bridge, those > rules are the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, along with local > regulations made within those Laws. > > There may be rules that we don't like, rules that are difficult if not > impossible to interpret, and rules that are genuinely bad and need changing. > However, should a TD go outside of the Laws (as he understands them) in > order to make rulings, the game being played is no longer bridge. The Laws > Committee, under the auspices of the WBF, has the authority to alter the > rules of the game. The TD does not. > > 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 Thu Apr 4 20:37:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Abpm21466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:37:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ptialaska.net (garza.acsalaska.net [209.193.61.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34AbkH21462 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:37:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-151-121-26-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net (208-151-121-26-dial-en4.fai.acsalaska.net [208.151.121.26] (may be forged)) by ptialaska.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g34AQpD20632; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:26:51 -0900 (AKST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 01:27:24 -0900 (Alaskan Standard Time) From: Michael Schmahl To: Alain Gottcheiner cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404121127.00a64ec0@pop.ulb.ac.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 Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 23:39 30/03/2002 -0900, Michael Schmahl wrote: > >On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > > Last week in my club: > > > > >[...] > > > > > > K73 > > > KQ5 > > > QJ73 > > > 852 > > > > >[...] > >[Auction 2NT - 4NT! - 6S; 4NT was explained as "5 spades and 4 hearts"] > > > >Obviously, after the explanation, 6NT is suggested over pass. The only > >question to be resolved is whether pass is a logical alternative. > > AQJxx - AJ - Axxx - AJ. Yes I missed this hand and also AQJTx - JTx - AKx - AJ. -- 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 Thu Apr 4 20:41:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34AfRQ21484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:41:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34AfKH21478 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:41:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA24942; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:27:49 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA04022; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:30:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404122238.00a58100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:35:36 +0200 To: Michael Schmahl , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) 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 16:13 3/04/2002 -0900, Michael Schmahl wrote: >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > > >I second this idea, although I would prefer the more lenient "offender's >partner must pass when next it is his turn to call", in the case of an >insufficient bid corrected to the minimum sufficient bid in the same >denomination. > >This parallels the construction of L31, and the same logic that supports >L31 would support this variant of L27. There is no question of how the >substitute is to be interpreted -- it must be natural, since it is very >likely to end the auction. By repeating the denomination of the >insufficient bid, most of the information conveyed by the IB is conveyed >by the replacement. It would not be too damaging to allow partner back >into the auction if it continues. AG : as to a review of L27, I think the rule about both bids having to be natural is unduly harsh. Because you opened a transfer 2D, rather than a natural 2H, your penalty for not having seen that partner opened 2S would be greater. Not a good idea to me. I've suggested this before : if the insufficient bid specifies one known suit (absent the bid you forgot to supersede), and nothing else, the lowest bid that in your system specifies the suit (over that same bid) is available without penalty. Example : you play Verne's "major first", where a 1C opening specifies at least a 4-card spade suit. You open 1C. But you're told opponent opened 1C in front of you. You may now bid 1S without penalty, except that your having opening values is UI to partner. If opponent opened 1NT, you might bid 2S without penalty, or, if you're playing tansfer overcalls, you may bid 2H without penalty. Also, any lead penalties would center around the spade suit. The laws are there to restore equity, and I feel this comes near to this objective - treat all offenders with the same degree of severity. This would need to ask the offender which error he had done and suppose he's honest in answering. But I feel it won't be so much of a problem. Also, it would reduce the number of applications of L23, which is a good thing, especially since most players don't understand the notion of 'could have known'. eg if you respond 1H over partner's 1NT, TD would need to determine whether you wanted to open 1H (you may now, according to my suggestion, respond 2D, transfer) or whether you wanted to respond 2H, transfer, in which case you still may. If there is any doubt about your answer being honest, your hand would tell the truth. 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 Apr 4 20:42:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34AgSQ21496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:42:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34AgMH21492 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:42:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA25213; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:28:50 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA05071; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:31:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404123615.00a62aa0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:36:38 +0200 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) In-Reply-To: <3CABFB16.1030907@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 09:04 4/04/2002 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: >Now this is a typical blml reaction. > >Someone spots a law that has a strange conssequence, that no-one, in over >20 years has ever spotted. > >Then we start discussing it for a long time, in an interesting manner. > >Then we continue discussing it for three times as long again. > >Then someone decides that this is a major problem, and he thinks it a good >idea to change the law so that this is solved. >Thereby changing a law that works perfectly well in 99.999% of the case >into an abomination that can hardly be called equitable. > >I'm voting a very strong NOOOOOOO to this suggestion. >I hope other sanee people will do the same. AG : I'm with you (and man bites dog). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 20:45:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Ajb021508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:45:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34AjVH21504 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:45:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.40]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU100A9DHDGDP@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:34:30 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:36:16 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Herman De Wael Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003901c1dbcc$efa0f900$8b4f003e@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: <3CABFB16.1030907@village.uunet.be> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ain't we overreacting. *Sane *indeed. BTW in my former posts I pointed out the 'dangers' in changing Laws Best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > Now this is a typical blml reaction. > > Someone spots a law that has a strange conssequence, that no-one, in > over 20 years has ever spotted. > > Then we start discussing it for a long time, in an interesting manner. > > Then we continue discussing it for three times as long again. > > Then someone decides that this is a major problem, and he thinks it a > good idea to change the law so that this is solved. > Thereby changing a law that works perfectly well in 99.999% of the > case into an abomination that can hardly be called equitable. > > I'm voting a very strong NOOOOOOO to this suggestion. > I hope other sanee people will do the same. > > richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > >>Is every Law ethical? I assume you all know the story > >>of the judge who, having no choice but to fine a hungry > >>man for stealing a loaf of bread, fined him $1, and > >>paid it from his own pocket. > >> > > > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > > > The current rule, which applies the bar to conventional > > insufficient bids (or conventional corrections) only, > > seems inadequate. > > > > My mooted change to Law 27 would also reduce the number > > of times a TD would have to ask the can-of-worms question: > > "What is a 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/ > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 20:51:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34ApZH21530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:51:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34ApTH21526 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:51:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g34AeTW17264 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:40:29 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g34AeWU17907 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:40:32 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:40:32 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: FW: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > Israel Erdnbaum wrote: > > >Is every Law ethical? I assume you all know the story > > >of the judge who, having no choice but to fine a hungry > > >man for stealing a loaf of bread, fined him $1, and > > >paid it from his own pocket. > > > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > > > The current rule, which applies the bar to conventional > > insufficient bids (or conventional corrections) only, > > seems inadequate. > > > I deem this law inadequate indeed, it should say something as : if the > insufficient call is replaced by a call with a comparable meaning the > auction continues as if ..... This version is going to give a lot of problems, consider: 2 NT - Pass - 2 C This pair plays 1N-2C as regular Stayman, 2N-3C as Puppet Stayman. Is 3C still comparable to 2C? Or even: 1 NT - 2 S - 2 C This pair plays Stayman and Lebensohl. Can I replace 2C by 2N, intending to bid 3S next? Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 20:52:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34AqqV21542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:52:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34AqjH21538 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:52:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id MAA27065; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:39:13 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id MAA13501; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:41:51 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404123803.00a641f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:47:01 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Submissions" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <00c501c1dbbb$3b3b64c0$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 11:29 4/04/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Law 20: "full explanation" includes explanation >of relevant calls available but not made. > >A "full description" of a transfer bid obviously >includes (or implies) the response itself. > >What about a "full description" of for instance >Flint - 3D after a 2NT opening bid. This asks >the opener to bid 3H after which the response >hand may pass or continue. The conventional >response by opener of 3S is a demand call for >4H in case the Flint bidder intended to play in >Hearts, and suggests pass in case the Flint >bidder intended to just correct to 3S. > >Should the 3S "possible - and in case >conventional response" to Flint 3D be included >in a complete explanation of Flint? > >A similar situation often occurs with the "Multi" >opening in 2D: The conventional response in >2S (instead of the "normal" response in 2H) is >an invitation to 4H in case the opener has a >weak 2H opening hand, and suggests pass >when the opener has a weak 2S opening hand. AG : I'd have thought it merely shows you're glad to raise to 3H -perhaps preemptively- if partner has hearts. >These are just a few examples of when a "full >explanation" may or might not include possible >future calls in the auction, and my question for >clarification is: > >To what extent (if any) should "full explanation" >include responses to (conventional) calls before >such resonse is actually made? AG : to no extent at all. It would allow players to remind their partners about the meaning of their call. The laws say you should explain what you know about partner's bid (things promised, inferred and denied, intentions, any deviations from what opponents would think). If opponents feel the developements would influence them in their choice of declaration, they might still ask. Apart from the informational aspect, there is also the need to save time. example : 1H - pass - 1NT (alert) - yes please ? Answer : 1-round force (intentions), either a genuine 5-to-11 1NT response, or a flat raise (description), in the latter case unlimited and may hold 4 spades (unexpected). To some opponents I would insist that the bid, even if forcing, is not necessarily strong, especially in Fladers, where "forcing" is sometimes taken as a synonym for " strong relay". Some play that a 2C response shows 2+, others play 3+ (that 4522 hand, you know). If this is of any importance to opponents, let them ask, now that questions may be asked about any element of the system, not just bids that were made. Best regards, Alain. >A matter for further clarification of law 20? > >regards Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 20:53:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34ArDQ21554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:53:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34Ar6H21550 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:53:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g34Ag7W17631 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:42:07 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g34AgAP17911 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:42:10 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:42:10 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Tim West-meads wrote: > New "short form" L27 to be eg: > > L27. If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be > corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid, a pass, or a > legal double/redouble. The auction should continue normally subject to > the restrictions in L16C. Except for the last sentence, this is the de-facto rule in online bridge: if you try to make an insufficient bid, then the system won't accept that. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 20:53:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34ArP521564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:53:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34ArFH21556 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:53:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g34AfgH29744 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:41:43 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Apr 04 12:38:02 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KG5ZKRSKX60016QX@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:40:41 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:40:21 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 12:40:37 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] more than sufficient bid To: "'Alain Gottcheiner'" , Michael Schmahl , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >On Sun, 31 Mar 2002, Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > > Last week in my club: > > > K73 > > > KQ5 > > > QJ73 > > > 852 > > > > >[...] > >[Auction 2NT - 4NT! - 6S; 4NT was explained as "5 spades and > 4 hearts"] > > > >Obviously, after the explanation, 6NT is suggested over > pass. The only > >question to be resolved is whether pass is a logical alternative. > > > >That depends in part on the interpretation of "logical > alternative" that > >applies in the case. IIRC some jurisdictions deem an action > to be a LA if > >a certain proportion of peers of the player would seriously consider > >that, while other jurisdictions deem an action to be a LA if > some players > >would take that action. I quite strongly follow the second interpretation. What I am interested in is the case that 4NT by agreement shows slam interest with 5S and 4H. Isn't the 6S bid that peculiar that partner most probably will remember the agreement now? Though we do not make that distinction clearly there is some reason to be more friendly in case of a misbid than in case of a misexplanation, regarding the UI. We still should allow players to use deduction. ton > > AG : pass is a LA ; it might even be the right decision. Say > 2NT is 20-22, > 5-card major possible (more or less standard, I'd say). > Obviously, 4NT was > intended as quantitative. Now imagine opener's hand is : > AQJxx - AJ - Axxx - AJ. I would gladly open this 2NT rather > than try 1S and > pray. Over 4NT, the top-heavy hand and good suit would incite me into > bidding 6S - quite rightly so ! Why should partner, "knowing" > I've got such > a hand, take out to 6NT, which is doomed ? > > 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 Apr 4 20:56:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34AuHP21578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:56:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34AuAH21574 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:56:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.80.27]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU100ABBHV7E9@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:45:10 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:46:21 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Grattan Endicott Cc: David Stevenson , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <004801c1dbce$6ca23440$8b4f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=Windows-1252 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <004401c1dbaa$b9e4fe00$b3a1403e@dodona> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Can you please translate into simple English. "Any alliterative allusion answers. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 9:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Apt alliteration's artful aid" - Charles Churchill. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gordon Bower" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:36 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient > Bid) > > > > > > On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Michael Schmahl wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > > > > > > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > > > > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > > > > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > > > > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > > > > > ............. \x/ .............. > > > > I agree with the idea that it would be sensible for L27 and > > L31 to be similar. > ---------------------- \x/ ---------------- > > > > Of course, if some of us were given the choice, we'd want > > to simplify L31 in the same way as L27, and replace L31A2 > > -and-L31B with "offender's partner must pass whenever it > > is his turn to call." > > > ............. \x/ .............. > > > +=+ The Sagacious* Seven have now set upon the work of > the General Review, although Zones still have until May 17 > to make submissions. Surprise, surprise, our first target is > Law 25 - discussion as yet incomplete. But 25B will be > dumped unless there is an unexpected ambush along the > track. ~ G ~ +=+ > > [ *Any alliterative allusion answers] > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 4 22:58:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34CvbA21711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 22:57:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailserver.link.net.id (mailserver.link.net.id [202.137.3.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g34CvRH21707 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 22:57:28 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 164698 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 12:43:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO u4q5d0) ([202.137.18.194]) (envelope-sender ) by mailserver.link.net.id (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 4 Apr 2002 12:43:36 -0000 Message-ID: <002301c1dbd6$952ca5a0$c21289ca@u4q5d0> From: "bert toar polii" To: Subject: [BLML] misinformation Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:45:19 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C1DC11.403D52C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0020_01C1DC11.403D52C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable W N E S 1D (1) Pas 3D(2)3H Dbl All Pas (1) Precision at least 2 cards (2) North to east Preemptive South to west Invitational Result 3Hx - 3. Director Ruling 3H - 3, NS appealled AC decision score stand 3Hx-3. 31 North S/NS 75 5 A86542 A532 Q1092 J84 63 KQ10987 KQJ9 10 K64 QJ10 AK63 AJ42 73 987 AC's desicion is based on reasoning that over INV 3D, 3H by east is = automatic. I don't agree. Please comment. Best regards, Bert Toar Polii ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C1DC11.403D52C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
W    N    = E    S
       =20             1D=20 (1)
Pas 3D(2)3H Dbl
All Pas
 
(1) Precision at least 2 = cards
(2) North to east = Preemptive
     South to west=20 Invitational
 
Result 3Hx - 3.
Director Ruling 3H - 3, NS = appealled
AC decision score stand = 3Hx-3.
31 =        =20 North
S/NS     = 75
   =20         5
          &nbs= p;=20 A86542
          &nbs= p;=20 A532
Q1092    =    =20         J84
63          &n= bsp;           KQ1= 0987
KQJ9          =        10
K64    =    =20             = QJ10
   =20        AK63
          &nbs= p;AJ42
   =20        73
          &nbs= p;987
AC's desicion is based on reasoning = that over INV=20 3D,  3H by east is automatic. I don't agree.
Please comment.
 
Best regards,
Bert Toar = Polii
------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C1DC11.403D52C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 00:16:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34EGBV21774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:16:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34EG5H21770 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:16:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16t7rU-00033q-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:05:12 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:06:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <00c501c1dbbb$3b3b64c0$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 04:29 AM 4/4/02, Sven wrote: >Law 20: "full explanation" includes explanation >of relevant calls available but not made. Not exactly. L20F1 says that "questions may be asked... about relevant calls available but not made". This does not imply that you must enumerate and explain all such relevant calls when asked to explain your actual call, only that you must do so if specifically asked to. My understanding is that the parenthetical was added to clear up an ambiguity in the previous wording of the law, which could be interpreted to allow opponents to ask questions only about bids actually made -- IOW, to stop BLs from giving answers like, "He didn't bid 3S, so I don't have to tell you what it would have meant," which used to be not uncommon. >A "full description" of a transfer bid obviously >includes (or implies) the response itself. I believe it is improper to enumerate partner's possible responses when explaining one's own call (unless asked, of course). "4NT." "Please explain." "Asks how may aces I have." ...is correct. "4NT." "Please explain." "Asks me to bid 5C with zero or four aces, 5D with one..." ...is an irregularity, with possible L16 implications. >What about a "full description" of for instance >Flint - 3D after a 2NT opening bid. This asks >the opener to bid 3H after which the response >hand may pass or continue. The conventional >response by opener of 3S is a demand call for >4H in case the Flint bidder intended to play in >Hearts, and suggests pass in case the Flint >bidder intended to just correct to 3S. "3D shows either hearts or spades without enough strength to force to game." NOT "3D asks me to bid 3H, but I bid 3S with..." >Should the 3S "possible - and in case >conventional response" to Flint 3D be included >in a complete explanation of Flint? No. See above. >A similar situation often occurs with the "Multi" >opening in 2D: The conventional response in >2S (instead of the "normal" response in 2H) is >an invitation to 4H in case the opener has a >weak 2H opening hand, and suggests pass >when the opener has a weak 2S opening hand. "2D." "Please explain." "He could have a weak two-bid in hearts or spades, or... [other possible hand types]." >These are just a few examples of when a "full >explanation" may or might not include possible >future calls in the auction, and my question for >clarification is: > >To what extent (if any) should "full explanation" >include responses to (conventional) calls before >such resonse is actually made? IMO, none. >A matter for further clarification of law 20? L20 reads clearly enough to satisfy me -- unless, of course, I'm wrong as to its intended meaning. When alerts were first introduced in the ACBL, a well-known expert who was opposed to the concept decided to stage a "protest". (He didn't bother to inform his hapless partner, who was yours truly.) He entered a midnight side game at a large tournament (in those days the midnight side games at this tournament were famously wild, with much beer in evidence). Any time his partner bid anything, he would alert. When the inevitable inquiry came, he would answer in the form "that asks me to (bid) X if I hold Y", where X was his intended next call and Y was a card-by-card readout of his hand. 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 Apr 5 00:19:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34EJmR21786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:19:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from obelix.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34EJgH21782 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:19:43 +1000 (EST) Received: by obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:02:14 +0200 Message-ID: <0022D5682F84D511B12300001CB61EFB04E645@obelix.spase.nl.206.168.192.in-addr.ARPA> From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] misinformation Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:02:10 +0200 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 >W N E S > 1D (1) >Pas 3D(2) 3H Dbl >All Pas > >(1) Precision at least 2 cards >(2) North to east Preemptive > South to west Invitational > >Result 3Hx - 3. >Director Ruling 3H - 3, NS appealled >AC decision score stand 3Hx-3. >31 North >S/NS 75 > 5 > A86542 > A532 >Q1092 J84 >63 KQ10987 >KQJ9 10 >K64 QJ10 > AK63 > AJ42 > 73 > 987 >AC's desicion is based on reasoning that over INV 3D, 3H by east is automatic. I don't agree. >Please comment. It seems to me that North is giving the correct explanation. East is therefore bidding with the proper information, so his bid should stand. I see no reason why South is not allowed to double, he didn't get any UI. And finally West, who did get wrong information, but he can only pass, with or without that information. I therefore agree with the AC that the table result should stand. Poor West, he desperately wants to double 3D, but is beaten by his own partner :( -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 00:39:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Ecow21803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:38:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34EcjH21799 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:38:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16t8DR-0007Dh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:27:53 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404091421.00b94b10@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:29:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404122238.00a58100@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 05:35 AM 4/4/02, Alain wrote: >AG : as to a review of L27, I think the rule about both bids having to >be natural is unduly harsh. Because you opened a transfer 2D, rather >than a natural 2H, your penalty for not having seen that partner >opened 2S would be greater. Not a good idea to me. >I've suggested this before : >if the insufficient bid specifies one known suit (absent the bid you >forgot to supersede), and nothing else, the lowest bid that in your >system specifies the suit (over that same bid) is available without >penalty. >Example : you play Verne's "major first", where a 1C opening specifies >at least a 4-card spade suit. You open 1C. But you're told opponent >opened 1C in front of you. You may now bid 1S without penalty, except >that your having opening values is UI to partner. If opponent opened >1NT, you might bid 2S without penalty, or, if you're playing tansfer >overcalls, you may bid 2H without penalty. Also, any lead penalties >would center around the spade suit. >The laws are there to restore equity, and I feel this comes near to >this objective - treat all offenders with the same degree of severity. >This would need to ask the offender which error he had done and >suppose he's honest in answering. But I feel it won't be so much of a >problem. Also, it would reduce the number of applications of L23, >which is a good thing, especially since most players don't understand >the notion of 'could have known'. >eg if you respond 1H over partner's 1NT, TD would need to determine >whether you wanted to open 1H (you may now, according to my >suggestion, respond 2D, transfer) or whether you wanted to respond 2H, >transfer, in which case you still may. If there is any doubt about >your answer being honest, your hand would tell the truth. I agree that L27B1(a) is a bit harsher than we might like, but Alain's proposal, while it may have theoretical merit, seems more complicated than it's worth. Perhaps we should confine ourselves to worrying about the most obvious cases. The poster case for the inequity of L27B1(a) is 2NT-P-2C, where the 2C bidder momentarily forgot that partner opened 2NT rather than 1NT and intended 2C as Stayman. It would seem preferable to allow him to correct to 3C (assuming that that is systemically also Stayman) without barring opener. That would at least be an easy fix: "If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertably not conventional, or have the same conventional meaning,..." 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 Apr 5 00:59:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Ex6p21821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:59:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34Ex0H21817 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:59:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA16332; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:45:27 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA28737; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:48:06 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404164701.00a671a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:53:13 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> References: <00c501c1dbbb$3b3b64c0$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 09:06 4/04/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 04:29 AM 4/4/02, Sven wrote: > >>Law 20: "full explanation" includes explanation >>of relevant calls available but not made. > >Not exactly. L20F1 says that "questions may be asked... about relevant >calls available but not made". This does not imply that you must >enumerate and explain all such relevant calls when asked to explain your >actual call, only that you must do so if specifically asked to. My >understanding is that the parenthetical was added to clear up an ambiguity >in the previous wording of the law, which could be interpreted to allow >opponents to ask questions only about bids actually made -- IOW, to stop >BLs from giving answers like, "He didn't bid 3S, so I don't have to tell >you what it would have meant," which used to be not uncommon. AG : more than this. It was the rule before 1987, to avoid the questions giving UI. Now it's recognized that it might be important to get information about non-made bids and specific developements, and if the questions do generate UI, we treat this separately. >>To what extent (if any) should "full explanation" >>include responses to (conventional) calls before >>such resonse is actually made? > >IMO, none. AG : I'll correct it a little : you should know what answers will focalize upon. 2NT-3C is either "asking for 4-card majors" (Stayman) or "asking for 4-card suits" (Baron) or "asking for length in the majors" (Puppet or Romex). Simply answering "relay" is not enough. If I wanted to know more, I'd ask. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 01:05:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34F4ta21837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:04:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34F4oH21833 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:04:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16t8cg-0005PF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:53:58 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404093600.00aba500@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 09:55:42 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] misinformation In-Reply-To: <002301c1dbd6$952ca5a0$c21289ca@u4q5d0> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_6737904==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_6737904==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 07:45 AM 4/4/02, bert wrote: >W N E S > 1D (1) >Pas 3D(2)3H Dbl >All Pas > >(1) Precision at least 2 cards >(2) North to east Preemptive > South to west Invitational > >Result 3Hx - 3. >Director Ruling 3H - 3, NS appealled >AC decision score stand 3Hx-3. >31 North >S/NS 75 > 5 > A86542 > A532 >Q1092 J84 >63 KQ10987 >KQJ9 10 >K64 QJ10 > AK63 > AJ42 > 73 > 987 >AC's desicion is based on reasoning that over INV 3D, 3H by east is >automatic. I don't agree. >Please comment. "3H by E is automatic" is a bridge judgment, so it is a proper basis for the ruling, but only if the AC really believes it! If I were on the AC, I would pose a hypothetical case: 1D[1]-P[2]-3D[3]-3H-P-P-P [1] Alerted, Precision. [2] W huddled, fingered his "Double" card, then passed. [3] Alerted and explained as invitational. E holds J84/KQ10987/10/QJ10. 3H makes 3. 3D would have made 3. TD adjusts to NS +110, citing L16A, appealed. Would the committee believe it automatic to restore the actual table result of NS -140, on the grounds that pass was not a logical alterative to E's 3H? If so, then they should rule as they did in the actual case. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_6737904==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 07:45 AM 4/4/02, bert wrote:

W    N    E    S
                    1D (1)
Pas 3D(2)3H Dbl
All Pas
 
(1) Precision at least 2 cards
(2) North to east Preemptive
     South to west Invitational
 
Result 3Hx - 3.
Director Ruling 3H - 3, NS appealled
AC decision score stand 3Hx-3.
31         North
S/NS     75
            5
            A86542
            A532
Q1092                J84
63                      KQ10987
KQJ9                 10
K64                    QJ10
           AK63
           AJ42
           73
           987
AC's desicion is based on reasoning that over INV 3D,  3H by east is automatic. I don't agree.
Please comment.

"3H by E is automatic" is a bridge judgment, so it is a proper basis for the ruling, but only if the AC really believes it!

If I were on the AC, I would pose a hypothetical case:

1D[1]-P[2]-3D[3]-3H-P-P-P
[1] Alerted, Precision.
[2] W huddled, fingered his "Double" card, then passed.
[3] Alerted and explained as invitational.

E holds J84/KQ10987/10/QJ10.  3H makes 3.  3D would have made 3.  TD adjusts to NS +110, citing L16A, appealed.

Would the committee believe it automatic to restore the actual table result of NS -140, on the grounds that pass was not a logical alterative to E's 3H?  If so, then they should rule as they did in the actual case.


Eric Landau                     ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive                 (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618 --=====================_6737904==_.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 Fri Apr 5 01:21:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34FLJA21858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:21:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34FLDH21854 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:21:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr; 4 Apr 2002 17:10:16 +0200 Received: from olivier (193.249.226.83) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr; 4 Apr 2002 17:09:52 +0200 Message-ID: <009a01c1dbea$764750e0$53e2f9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: References: <002301c1dbd6$952ca5a0$c21289ca@u4q5d0> Subject: Re: [BLML] misinformation Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:07:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0097_01C1DBFB.397C3480" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C1DBFB.397C3480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How can we say anything not knowing what is the system? Is it Preemptive? Is it Invitational Is it Desagreed? Then after we can look for a misinformation/damage/wild action etc. Olivier. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: bert toar polii=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 2:45 PM Subject: [BLML] misinformation W N E S 1D (1) Pas 3D(2)3H Dbl All Pas =20 (1) Precision at least 2 cards (2) North to east Preemptive South to west Invitational =20 Result 3Hx - 3. Director Ruling 3H - 3, NS appealled AC decision score stand 3Hx-3. 31 North S/NS 75 5 A86542 A532 Q1092 J84 63 KQ10987 KQJ9 10 K64 QJ10 AK63 AJ42 73 987 AC's desicion is based on reasoning that over INV 3D, 3H by east is = automatic. I don't agree. Please comment. =20 Best regards, Bert Toar Polii ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C1DBFB.397C3480 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
How can we say anything not knowing = what is=20 the system?
Is it Preemptive?
Is it Invitational
Is it Desagreed?
Then after we can look for a=20 misinformation/damage/wild action etc.
Olivier.
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 bert toar polii
To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 = 2:45=20 PM
Subject: [BLML] = misinformation

W    = N   =20 E    S
        =             1D=20 (1)
Pas 3D(2)3H Dbl
All Pas
 
(1) Precision at least 2 = cards
(2) North to east = Preemptive
     South to = west=20 Invitational
 
Result 3Hx - 3.
Director Ruling 3H - 3, NS = appealled
AC decision score stand = 3Hx-3.
31 =        =20 North
S/NS     = 75
   =20         5
          &nbs= p;=20 A86542
          &nbs= p;=20 A532
Q1092    =    =20         J84
63          &n= bsp;           KQ1= 0987
KQJ9          =        10
K64    =    =20             = QJ10
   =20        AK63
          &nbs= p;AJ42
   =20        73
          &nbs= p;987
AC's desicion is based on reasoning = that over INV=20 3D,  3H by east is automatic. I don't agree.
Please comment.
 
Best regards,
Bert Toar=20 Polii
------=_NextPart_000_0097_01C1DBFB.397C3480-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 01:24:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34FOiH21870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:24:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34FOdH21866 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:24:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16t8vr-00056R-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:13:47 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404100216.00b9cd20@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:15:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404164701.00a671a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <00c501c1dbbb$3b3b64c0$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 09:53 AM 4/4/02, Alain wrote: >At 09:06 4/04/2002 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>At 04:29 AM 4/4/02, Sven wrote: >> >>>To what extent (if any) should "full explanation" >>>include responses to (conventional) calls before >>>such resonse is actually made? >> >>IMO, none. > >AG : I'll correct it a little : you should know what answers will >focalize upon. >2NT-3C is either "asking for 4-card majors" (Stayman) or "asking for >4-card suits" (Baron) or "asking for length in the majors" (Puppet or >Romex). Simply answering "relay" is not enough. >If I wanted to know more, I'd ask. Exactly right, and exactly what I (at least thought I had) said -- my earlier post contained the example of explaining 4NT correctly as, "Asks how may aces I have." Clearly, you can only describe a pure asking bid in terms of what it asks for. What you should not do is enumerate or explain your own potential responses. None of Alain's example responses do this. WRT 2NT-3C Stayman, "asking for 4-card majors" is fine. But if a player in my game, holding 4-4 in the majors, responded to an inquiry with "asks me to bid 3D with no four-card major, 3H with four hearts, or 3S with four spades but not four hearts" prior to bidding 3H, I would at the very least warn them not to quite so "forthcoming" next time. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 01:37:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Favk21884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:36:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34FapH21880 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:36:52 +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 g34FPvo13561 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:25:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:15:02 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@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 4/4/02, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >Except for the last sentence, this is the de-facto rule in online bridge: >if you try to make an insufficient bid, then the system won't accept that. This, to my mind, is one of the problems with online bridge. There was a case some time ago on the Zone, in which the software would not allow some irregularity (sorry, I don't remember the details) to be handled in accordance with the laws. I pointed that out (I think in rec.games.bridge) and ended up in an email conversation with the guy running that site. His position was that the program had been written, he didn't have the money (this from Microsoft!) to have it re-written, so if it wasn't in compliance with the laws, that was just too bad. IMNSHO, if people are going to write software to allow people to play bridge on line, that software either conforms to the laws, or what they're playing isn't Contract Bridge. Of course, the guy running the Zone, didn't care about my opinion, and probably neither does anybody else running such a site. But it's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 Apr 5 01:37:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Fb4v21890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:37:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34FawH21886 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:36:59 +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 g34FQ6o13754 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:26:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:01:47 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00c501c1dbbb$3b3b64c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020404102611-R01050000-6221A380-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@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 4/4/02, Sven Pran wrote: >To what extent (if any) should "full explanation" >include responses to (conventional) calls before >such resonse is actually made? > >A matter for further clarification of law 20? Alain replied: >AG : to no extent at all. It would allow players to remind their partners >about the meaning of their call. >The laws say you should explain what you know about partner's bid (things >promised, inferred and denied, intentions, any deviations from what >opponents would think). If opponents feel the developements would influence >them in their choice of declaration, they might still ask. Apart from the >informational aspect, there is also the need to save time. Eric Landau added: > I believe it is improper to enumerate partner's possible responses when >explaining one's own call (unless asked, of course). I recently asked just this question of the ACBL (mailto:rulings@acbl.org). Mike Flader passed the buck to Gary Blaiss (formerly Chief TD of the ACBL; I'm not sure what his title is now - or for that matter who's CTD. Maybe Mike.) Gary referred me to the ACBL Mid-Chart, saying that its regulations require full (written!) disclosure, in advance (ie, with a Pre-alert, given at the start of a round) of any Mid-Chart conventions, including all possible responses *and* a (n approved) suggested defence. Players can, of course, refer to this description at the table when a conventional call is made. He implied that full disclosure requires the same information (verbally) in response to a question about a convention approved on the General Convention chart. I'm awaiting clarification on that point. FWIW, I agree with Eric - up to a point. The law mentions calls which *could have been made* but were not. If it's my RHO's turn to call, and I'm explaining partner's call, then no response by me could possibly have been made yet. I'm awaiting Gary's clarification of that, too. 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 Apr 5 01:49:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34FnLA21912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:49:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34FnFH21908 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:49:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.129.237] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16t9Ex-000JPp-00; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:33:32 +0100 Message-ID: <000501c1dbee$bba47060$ed81403e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Grattan Endicott'" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:36:39 +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 Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: 04 April 2002 09:50 Subject: RE: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > > > > We better start deciding how to communicate > with the outer world about our progress. This > seems a somewhat uncontroled, and for me > unexpected way. Triumph reigning? > > ton > -- +=+ Sorry. Thoughtless of me to refer to it. Breach of confidence with the subcommittee. Apologies all round. No personal "triumph"; not my initiative. And not yet final. But there are no victories to be won in this game. ~ 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 Apr 5 02:28:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34GSTR21945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:28:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34GSNH21941 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:28:24 +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 LAA26702 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:17:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA08195 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:17:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:17:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204041617.LAA08195@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > A "full description" of a transfer bid obviously > includes (or implies) the response itself. This seems wrong to me. In principle, a full explanation should include a description of the hands that might be held and nothing whatsoever about further bidding. However, in some cases, especially asking bids and relays, describing all the hands that might be held is too hard, so we describe the responses instead. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 02:32:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34GWBS21957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:32:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34GW5H21953 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:32:06 +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 LAA27767 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:21:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA08201 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:21:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:21:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204041621.LAA08201@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. Let me put in another plug for separating mechanical and UI penalties. Thus (if the IB is not accepted) _either_ a) offender substitutes a legal bid or pass (and maybe legal double or redouble should be allowed too) and the withdrawn IB is UI to the OS, _or_ b) offender substitutes a legal bid or pass (and here double or redouble should probably still be barred), and offender's partner must pass for the rest of the auction, and possibly there should be lead penalties, but the withdrawn IB is AI. (Possibly there is also a case for b', offender's partner is barred for only one round.) My problem is how to choose between a) or b) for a specific case. My first thought was that the NOS or perhaps the TD should choose, but that seems messy and too complicated. The goal is to simplify! What about using a) if the IB is corrected to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination and b) otherwise? This solves some of the present "odd" cases: 2NT-P-[2C, 2D, 2H]. Just correct to the next level up if your 1NT and 2NT structures are similar, and any differences are handled by L16. Similarly (1NT)-1S. Just bid 2S, if you like, and the fact that you have an opening bid is UI. The above rule probably isn't best in the case that started all this: 1H-P-1H. Here we might like to rule a): offender just makes his normal forcing raise, and the auction continues. However, I'm afraid using a) too often will create too many UI cases, which are more difficult to rule than mechanical penalties. Probably there are some holes in the above. I am not at all sure how to choose which penalty should apply. One thing that does seem clear, though, is that if the ruling is any of a), b), or b'), a competent director will have no trouble applying the 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 Apr 5 02:39:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Gcxu21970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:38:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34GcrH21966 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 02:38:54 +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 LAA28776 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA08211 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:28:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:28:01 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204041628.LAA08211@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] misinformation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Martin Sinot > It seems to me that North is giving the correct explanation. Why do you say that? His hand seems consistent with either meaning, depending on exactly what "invitational" means. (Give South Axx Axx Kxxx xxx, and 3NT needs only a 2-1 diamond break.) As Eric says, the bridge judgment that 3H is automatic is sufficient to justify the decision, but it seems an odd judgment to me. However, the original message did not give the vulnerability, the form of scoring, or any other information, so perhaps the ruling would be understandable if all the facts were known. On the surface, however, I think makes a difference what the correct explanation of 3D was. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 03:32:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34HVER22027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 03:31:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34HV8H22023 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 03:31:09 +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 g34HKOo15220 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:20:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:17:58 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... References: <200204032229.RAA02469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004301c1dbaa$b8fa01c0$b3a1403e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <004301c1dbaa$b8fa01c0$b3a1403e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <004301c1dbaa$b8fa01c0$b3a1403e@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"My mind is in a state of philosophical doubt," > ~ S.T. Coleridge >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Willner" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 11:29 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... > > >> > From: "Robert E. Harris" >> >> This is OK, but IMHO, if there is a guide card on the table, all >> four players are responsible for verifying that the correct >> boards are about to be played. > >+=+ Noted for General Review ~ G ~ +=+ > If one of the pairs is stationary then they're responsible. If not then they both are IMO. That much is in the laws. cheers john > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 03:33:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34HXFv22039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 03:33:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34HX9H22035 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 03:33:09 +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 g34HMPo15225 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:22:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:19:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was 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 , Gordon Bower writes > > >On Wed, 3 Apr 2002, Michael Schmahl wrote: > >> On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >> >> > I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent >> > general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending >> > Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a >> > player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. >> > >> >> I second this idea, although I would prefer the more lenient "offender's >> partner must pass when next it is his turn to call", in the case of an >> insufficient bid corrected to the minimum sufficient bid in the same >> denomination. >> >> This parallels the construction of L31, and the same logic that supports >> L31 would support this variant of L27. There is no question of how the >> substitute is to be interpreted -- it must be natural, since it is very >> likely to end the auction. By repeating the denomination of the >> insufficient bid, most of the information conveyed by the IB is conveyed >> by the replacement. It would not be too damaging to allow partner back >> into the auction if it continues. > It has always been fundamental to bridge that an insufficient bid can "be made good" with no penalty. If this creates UI then it must carefully be avoided. Rubber bridge players would have had no problem with this one. cheers john >I agree with the idea that it would be sensible for L27 and L31 to be >similar. > >Of course, if some of us were given the choice, we'd want to simplify L31 >in the same way as L27, and replace L31A2-and-L31B with "offender's >partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call." > >But that gets back into the style issues we've discussed many times in the >past, of whether we'd rather have all the laws equity-based or more >mechanical and judgment-free. > >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/ -- 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 Apr 5 03:35:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34HZFA22052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 03:35:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34HZAH22048 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 03:35:10 +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 g34HOQo15229 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:24:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:21:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was 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 , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Richard Hills wrote: > >> I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent >> general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending >> Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a >> player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. > >May I beg the powers that be to take a completely different approach. >Namely. >1) Do away with *all* mechanical penalties in the auction/play regardless >of whether the insufficient bid (or it's replacement) is conventional. Hmm. I'm for a natural bid to be made good without penalty (subject to UI constraints), otherwise I'm for the silence partner route. cheers john >2) Make it clear that any information arising from the withdrawn call (or >action surrounding it) is UI (to OS) subject to 73C (and rulings using >the usual laws for such adjustments) and that it is AI to the OS. > >New "short form" L27 to be eg: > >L27. If an insufficient bid made in rotation is not accepted, it must be >corrected by the substitution of either a sufficient bid, a pass, or a >legal double/redouble. The auction should continue normally subject to >the restrictions in L16C. > >Obviously PPs could be issued if "underbidding" becomes a problem and the >usual "could have known" adjustments can be made where appropriate. > >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 Apr 5 04:37:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Iad922102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:36:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34IaXH22098 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:36:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0622.bb.online.no [80.212.210.110]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA14112 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:25:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:25:33 +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: "Eric Landau" > >Law 20: "full explanation" includes explanation > >of relevant calls available but not made. > > Not exactly. L20F1 says that "questions may be asked... about relevant > calls available but not made". This does not imply that you must > enumerate and explain all such relevant calls when asked to explain > your actual call, only that you must do so if specifically asked > to. My understanding is that the parenthetical was added to clear up > an ambiguity in the previous wording of the law, which could be > interpreted to allow opponents to ask questions only about bids > actually made -- IOW, to stop BLs from giving answers like, "He didn't > bid 3S, so I don't have to tell you what it would have meant," which > used to be not uncommon. Fair enough > > >A "full description" of a transfer bid obviously > >includes (or implies) the response itself. > > I believe it is improper to enumerate partner's possible responses when > explaining one's own call (unless asked, of course). > > "4NT." > "Please explain." > "Asks how may aces I have." > > ...is correct. > > "4NT." > "Please explain." > "Asks me to bid 5C with zero or four aces, 5D with one..." > > ...is an irregularity, with possible L16 implications. > > >What about a "full description" of for instance > >Flint - 3D after a 2NT opening bid. This asks > >the opener to bid 3H after which the response > >hand may pass or continue. The conventional > >response by opener of 3S is a demand call for > >4H in case the Flint bidder intended to play in > >Hearts, and suggests pass in case the Flint > >bidder intended to just correct to 3S. > > "3D shows either hearts or spades without enough strength to force to > game." > > NOT "3D asks me to bid 3H, but I bid 3S with..." > > >Should the 3S "possible - and in case > >conventional response" to Flint 3D be included > >in a complete explanation of Flint? > > No. See above. > > >A similar situation often occurs with the "Multi" > >opening in 2D: The conventional response in > >2S (instead of the "normal" response in 2H) is > >an invitation to 4H in case the opener has a > >weak 2H opening hand, and suggests pass > >when the opener has a weak 2S opening hand. > > "2D." > "Please explain." > "He could have a weak two-bid in hearts or spades, or... [other > possible hand types]." > > >These are just a few examples of when a "full > >explanation" may or might not include possible > >future calls in the auction, and my question for > >clarification is: > > > >To what extent (if any) should "full explanation" > >include responses to (conventional) calls before > >such resonse is actually made? > > IMO, none. Thank you for making your point very well. I have no objection if that shall be the rule, but I tried to give some cases where the actual response alternatives, particularly to conventional calls, might be important for LHO to know before he selects his call. (We have had this discussion here already, but I don't think we reached any result). And what I should like to have settled is whether the questions on the interpretation of a call may include, not only the call itself and not only relevant calls available in that round but not made, but even also possible relevant responses. The interest for LHO would be when he is to decide whether he has an opportunity for some call "disturbing" to that conventional agreement. It may very well be the intention of Law 20 that explanations (and questions) should be limited to what has happened (or could have happened) in the auction so far, excluding explanations of future calls until they (can) occur. 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 Apr 5 04:41:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Ifkp22118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:41:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34IffH22114 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:41:41 +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 NAA05476 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:30:48 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA08372 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:30:48 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 13:30:48 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204041830.NAA08372@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > The interest for LHO > would be when he is to decide whether he has an opportunity for > some call "disturbing" to that conventional agreement. This can, of course, lead to the "merry-go-round" problem. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 04:58:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Ivmi22134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:57:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34IvgH22130 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:57:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0622.bb.online.no [80.212.210.110]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA23703 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:46:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005b01c1dc09$11a92a40$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:46:44 +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: "John (MadDog) Probst" ..... > It has always been fundamental to bridge that an insufficient bid can > "be made good" with no penalty. If this creates UI then it must > carefully be avoided. Always? >From the laws on Duplicate Contract Bridge as of 1935: Insufficient Bid 25. A bid is insufficient if ...... If the offender's left-hand opponent declares before attention is called to the offence, the insufficient bid stands and is treated as if sufficient. (a) Insufficient bid, corrected by the offender before attention is called by another player. Penalty: The bid must be made sufficient by substituting a higher bid in the same denomination. (b) Insufficient bid, when attention is called by another player. Penalty: The bid must be made sufficient by substituting a higher bid of any denomination. The offender's partner must pass when next it is his turn to call, but may thereafter enter the auction. Simple ! - Fair ? 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 Apr 5 05:00:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34IxvY22146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:59:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34IxpH22142 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 04:59:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0622.bb.online.no [80.212.210.110]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA25100 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:48:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006101c1dc09$5ec268a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204041830.NAA08372@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:48:50 +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: "Steve Willner" > > The interest for LHO > > would be when he is to decide whether he has an opportunity for > > some call "disturbing" to that conventional agreement. > > This can, of course, lead to the "merry-go-round" problem. True ! So where do we draw the line? (Probably at the current call) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 05:26:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34JQ8622171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 05:26:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34JQ3H22167 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 05:26:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16tChS-0004UP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:15:10 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404135642.00abae00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:16:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <20020404102611-R01050000-6221A380-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445 DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> References: <00c501c1dbbb$3b3b64c0$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 10:01 AM 4/4/02, Ed wrote: >I recently asked just this question of the ACBL >(mailto:rulings@acbl.org). Mike Flader passed the buck to Gary Blaiss >(formerly Chief TD of the ACBL; I'm not sure what his title is now - >or for that matter who's CTD. Maybe Mike.) Gary >referred me to the ACBL Mid-Chart, saying that its regulations require >full (written!) disclosure, in advance (ie, with a >Pre-alert, given at the start of a round) of any Mid-Chart >conventions, including all possible responses *and* a (n >approved) suggested defence. Players can, of course, refer to this >description at the table when a conventional call is >made. He implied that full disclosure requires the same information >(verbally) in response to a question about a >convention approved on the General Convention chart. I'm awaiting >clarification on that point. > >FWIW, I agree with Eric - up to a point. The law mentions calls which >*could have been made* but were not. If it's my >RHO's turn to call, and I'm explaining partner's call, then no >response by me could possibly have been made yet. I'm >awaiting Gary's clarification of that, too. I think Ed has it right. A full explanation may require mentioning or explaining alternatives to the calls already made, which is entirely different from explaining the meaning of potential responses not yet made. An example from my own strong-NT methods: "1NT." "Pass." "2H." "Alert." "Please explain." "Spades, any strength." "Pass." "2S." "Pass." "3S." "Alert." "Please explain." "Invitational to game, strongly suggesting 4S rather than 3NT. If she were interested in inviting 3NT, she could have bid 3S directly over 1NT." Written disclosure is fundamentally different, as it describes bidding structures rather than individual calls. A complete written explanation of a convention not only fully discloses the conventional meaning of the initiating call, but must also fully disclose the conventional meanings of all possible responses, rebids and follow-ups. That can, and often does, go on for page after page. It seems silly to imply that the entire written explanation is an appropriate response at the table to being asked about the meaning of a single call covered by it, not to mention the need to reserve time in the round for the rest of the auction and the play. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 05:52:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Jpuc22189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 05:51:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34JpoH22185 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 05:51:51 +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 OAA09970 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:40:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA08446 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:40:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 14:40:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204041940.OAA08446@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > So where do we draw the line? (Probably at the current call) It isn't clear. *My* answer -- which is not explicit in the FLB but is, I believe, theoretically sound -- is that opponents are entitled to a complete description of the agreements up to the current moment but to nothing at all about the future. Of course that's theory. In real life, "complete description of the agreements up to the current moment" is often too hard! It is easy to say "forcing" but much harder to enumerate all the strong hand types that might use a given forcing bid. Or consider a relay: probably the best explanation would be to say it excludes the hands that would not have relayed and list those hand types, but that's obviously very hard. Much easier to say "artificial, strong, forcing, asks for (specified, if possible) further information," and opponents usually find that enough. (Stayman and Blackwood are good examples.) Still, when it is possible to give a reasonable description of what a call shows, it shouldn't be necessary to say anything about the subsequent bidding. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 06:13:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34KCwf22215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:12:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34KCrH22211 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:12:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16tDQn-00055y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:02:01 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404142959.00abd750@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:03:46 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@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 01:25 PM 4/4/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > >Law 20: "full explanation" includes explanation > > >of relevant calls available but not made. > > > > Not exactly. L20F1 says that "questions may be asked... about > relevant > > calls available but not made". This does not imply that you must > > enumerate and explain all such relevant calls when asked to explain > > your actual call, only that you must do so if specifically asked > > to. My understanding is that the parenthetical was added to clear up > > an ambiguity in the previous wording of the law, which could be > > interpreted to allow opponents to ask questions only about bids > > actually made -- IOW, to stop BLs from giving answers like, "He didn't > > bid 3S, so I don't have to tell you what it would have meant," which > > used to be not uncommon. [snip] >Thank you for making your point very well. I have no objection >if that shall be the rule, but I tried to give some cases where the >actual response alternatives, particularly to conventional calls, >might be important for LHO to know before he selects his call. >(We have had this discussion here already, but I don't think we >reached any result). Examples are not needed; we can all easily come up with our own. >And what I should like to have settled is whether the questions >on the interpretation of a call may include, not only the call itself >and not only relevant calls available in that round but not made, >but even also possible relevant responses. The interest for LHO >would be when he is to decide whether he has an opportunity for >some call "disturbing" to that conventional agreement. Absolutely, yes, they may. >It may very well be the intention of Law 20 that explanations (and >questions) should be limited to what has happened (or could have >happened) in the auction so far, excluding explanations of future >calls until they (can) occur. I don't think so. I think we may be confusing two different questions: (1) What constitutes proper full disclosure in response to an opponents' generic inquiry as to the meaning of a call actually made (e.g. "Please explain," or, "What does that bid mean?"). That is the question I was attempting to answer in my earlier post to this thread. (2) Besides the information which must be given in reply to a generic inquiry, what other information may properly be requested about the meanings of other partnership agreements? I think the answer to that is "anything". Any bona fide[*] question about the opponents' agreements is legitimate, and must be answered as fully and completely as one would be required to answer a question about a call actually made. [*] By "bona fide" I mean any question to which the questioner genuinely believes he needs the answer to best select his own subsequent call[s]; the right to request disclosure of the opponents' bidding methods is limited only by various prohibitions against asking questions for reasons other than wanting to know the answer (e.g. to stall, harass or intimidate (per L74), or to communicate with one's partner (per L73)). 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 Apr 5 06:43:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Kh8d22235 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:43:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34Kh1H22231 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:43:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0622.bb.online.no [80.212.210.110]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA04043 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 22:32:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00c701c1dc17$c7ec5f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404142959.00abd750@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 22:32:03 +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: "Eric Landau" > [snip] > > >Thank you for making your point very well. I have no objection > >if that shall be the rule, but I tried to give some cases where the > >actual response alternatives, particularly to conventional calls, > >might be important for LHO to know before he selects his call. > >(We have had this discussion here already, but I don't think we > >reached any result). > > Examples are not needed; we can all easily come up with our own. > > >And what I should like to have settled is whether the questions > >on the interpretation of a call may include, not only the call itself > >and not only relevant calls available in that round but not made, > >but even also possible relevant responses. The interest for LHO > >would be when he is to decide whether he has an opportunity for > >some call "disturbing" to that conventional agreement. > > Absolutely, yes, they may. > > >It may very well be the intention of Law 20 that explanations (and > >questions) should be limited to what has happened (or could have > >happened) in the auction so far, excluding explanations of future > >calls until they (can) occur. > > I don't think so. > > I think we may be confusing two different questions: > > (1) What constitutes proper full disclosure in response to an > opponents' generic inquiry as to the meaning of a call actually made > (e.g. "Please explain," or, "What does that bid mean?"). That is the > question I was attempting to answer in my earlier post to this thread. > > (2) Besides the information which must be given in reply to a generic > inquiry, what other information may properly be requested about the > meanings of other partnership agreements? I think the answer to that > is "anything". Any bona fide[*] question about the opponents' > agreements is legitimate, and must be answered as fully and completely > as one would be required to answer a question about a call actually made. > > [*] By "bona fide" I mean any question to which the questioner > genuinely believes he needs the answer to best select his own > subsequent call[s]; the right to request disclosure of the opponents' > bidding methods is limited only by various prohibitions against asking > questions for reasons other than wanting to know the answer (e.g. to > stall, harass or intimidate (per L74), or to communicate with one's > partner (per L73)). Yes, I am familiar with the term "bona fide". You express generally what is also my opinion on disclosure. However, I see how easily such questions may cross the line of passing UI to partner and there is always the problem who is the right player to answer them. Just to make that point clear: I have so far in my experience never met a player refusing to answer questions on partnership understandings or bidding systems. This is not a major problem unless players begin to "hide behind 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 Fri Apr 5 06:53:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Kqvq22248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:52:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34KqpH22244 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 06:52:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-238-35.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.238.35]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g34KfotZ005931 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:41:59 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:41:50 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@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 Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:15:02 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 4/4/02, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > >>Except for the last sentence, this is the de-facto rule in online bridge: >>if you try to make an insufficient bid, then the system won't accept that. > >This, to my mind, is one of the problems with online bridge. There was a case some time ago on the Zone, in which the >software would not allow some irregularity (sorry, I don't remember the details) to be handled in accordance with the >laws. I pointed that out (I think in rec.games.bridge) and ended up in an email conversation with the guy running that >site. His position was that the program had been written, he didn't have the money (this from Microsoft!) to have it >re-written, so if it wasn't in compliance with the laws, that was just too bad. IMNSHO, if people are going to write >software to allow people to play bridge on line, that software either conforms to the laws, or what they're playing isn't >Contract Bridge. Of course, the guy running the Zone, didn't care about my opinion, and probably neither does anybody >else running such a site. But it's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :-) > Well, I can understand Fred Gitelman's position, software being my living as well. Programmers are not charities. You write software to specifications, and if the client later changes their mind as to what was needed, then it costs more money to rewrite it. No money, no rewrite. In any event, to require online bridge to be 100% in compliance with the current Laws is to live in cloud-cuckoo land. Sorry if that sounds harsh, Ed, but I can't put it any other way. Online bridge *is* different, played under different circumstances, there *are* factors in there which are not covered in the Laws. Let me give you just the one most obvious example from a *long* list. Internet bridge is a world-wide game, I've frequently played on OKBridge where all four players at the table are on different continents. That means many hops between the players and the server. You *do* get lost packets across the internet, there *are* those who have flaky net connections, and no amount of pointing to the laws governing hesitations is going to change that fact. You can't even point at the longer hesitations, people play online bridge with far more distractions than you would get at the club, and you just have to accept that. As far as online bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws concerning hesitations out of the window, and most people with any experience of online bridge realise that. Now, you can say that this "isn't Contract Bridge", and you're entitled to that opinion, but I don't think it's just the people running the site who don't care about your opinion. Given that hesitations are a fact of life, I think if you told a cross-section of online players that you didn't think they were playing bridge, you'd get more than a few answers that suggested you found something better to do with your time, and they'd be the polite ones. Online bridge has attracted a hell of a lot of players who otherwise wouldn't play the game, Ed. You simply have to accept that there ARE differences between online and face-to-face play, just as five a side soccer or rugby sevens have slightly different rules from the full game. To do otherwise is simply unrealistic, IMHO. Online bridge is here to stay. The WBFLC is at least making the right noises by saying that there needs to be an online version of the laws, although I sure as hell hope there's at least one competent computer expert on the committee that's writing them. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 07:00:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34L0S722264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:00:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34L0NH22260 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:00:24 +1000 (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 4DAF7YWY; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:49:30 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404154610.0358bc90@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:49:22 -0500 To: From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <004601c1dadb$5ae47860$7919e150@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 >At 08:41 AM 4/3/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >JFTR, where I play (Washington DC area), we are actually very well served by our local TDs, but also very much aware that we are highly >atypical of the ACBL in that respect. (That is neither a personal nor a parochial view, but a widespread consensus among knowledgeable >players and officials ACBL-wide. As a newcomer to the area let me add my voice. What Eric says is true. The directors at the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia area sectionals, regionals, and of course the upcoming National are all absolutely top drawer. Every time I hear a ruling it is concise, to the point, and accurate. I feel lucky to have these directors running the tournaments. The older ones have been recognized by the ACBL as being among their best; the newer ones have been exceptionally well trained and chosen. I've have only played in one bridge club here, but have been very happy as well with the level of expertise at the Bridge Club of Baltimore (aka "Kathy's") where I occasionally play. Two of the "local" directors that I have met frequently serve as Directors in Charge of Regional tournaments throughout a wide area. One of them will be in charge of the upcoming "National" tournament in Washington, DC. Both of these men are extremely knowledgeable and do fantastic jobs. We are indeed lucky to have this level of directing here. 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 Apr 5 07:10:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34LAVY22279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:10:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34LAQH22275 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:10:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16tEKU-0001HN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:59:34 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404154010.00b994d0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:01:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <200204041830.NAA08372@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:30 PM 4/4/02, Steve wrote: > > From: "Sven Pran" > > The interest for LHO > > would be when he is to decide whether he has an opportunity for > > some call "disturbing" to that conventional agreement. > >This can, of course, lead to the "merry-go-round" problem. No, that's something else. The "merry-go-round" problem occurs only when the meanings of an opponent's subsequent possible calls determines the meaning of one's own. In the cases Sven is talking about (if I've understood him correctly), the meanings of one's potential calls don't depend on the meanings of opponent's subsequent possible calls, only the choice of which call to make does. We're not talking about, "If your double of 3H would be for takeout then 3H is weak, but if your double would be for penalty it's strong;" we're talking about "3H is weak; if your double would be for takeout I want to bid it, but if your double would be for penalty I want to pass." No merry-go-round 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 Apr 5 07:10:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34LApw22285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:10:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34LAiH22281 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:10:44 +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 PAA14384 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:59:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA08579 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:59:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:59:50 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204042059.PAA08579@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Brian Meadows > You *do* get lost packets across the internet [and other reasons omitted] ... > As far as online > bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws concerning hesitations > out of the window, You seem to have refuted your own example. If the Internet causes hesitations, then they do not come from partner, nor do they suggest one action over another. The Laws cope with this situation just fine; no need to toss them out the window. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 07:55:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34LsUT22314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:54:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34LsPH22310 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:54:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16tF12-0002kS-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:43:32 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404161706.00bb6950@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:45:17 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <00c701c1dc17$c7ec5f80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404142959.00abd750@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 03:32 PM 4/4/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > I think we may be confusing two different questions: > > > > (1) What constitutes proper full disclosure in response to an > > opponents' generic inquiry as to the meaning of a call actually made > > (e.g. "Please explain," or, "What does that bid mean?"). That is the > > question I was attempting to answer in my earlier post to this thread. > > > > (2) Besides the information which must be given in reply to a generic > > inquiry, what other information may properly be requested about the > > meanings of other partnership agreements? I think the answer to that > > is "anything". Any bona fide[*] question about the opponents' > > agreements is legitimate, and must be answered as fully and completely > > as one would be required to answer a question about a call actually > made. > > > > [*] By "bona fide" I mean any question to which the questioner > > genuinely believes he needs the answer to best select his own > > subsequent call[s]; the right to request disclosure of the opponents' > > bidding methods is limited only by various prohibitions against asking > > questions for reasons other than wanting to know the answer (e.g. to > > stall, harass or intimidate (per L74), or to communicate with one's > > partner (per L73)). > >Yes, I am familiar with the term "bona fide". No slight intended to anyone; I was merely explaining how I was using the term in context. >You express generally what is also my opinion on disclosure. >However, I see how easily such questions may cross the line of passing >UI to partner and there is always the problem who is the right player to >answer them. UI is always a possible consideration when questions are asked, as L73B1 makes clear. This doesn't affect the right to ask questions, though; any UI passed in doing so is handled just like any other UI passed in doing anything else legal, including calling or playing one's cards. As to who is the right player to answer them, I believe L20F1, with its cross-reference to L75C, tells us that it is the partner of the player who made the call being questioned unless the players have been specifically instructed otherwise. IOW, I read "normally" in L20F1 as "subject to modification under the provisions of L80E-F". >Just to make that point clear: I have so far in my experience never met >a player refusing to answer questions on partnership understandings or >bidding systems. This is not a major problem unless players begin to >"hide behind the laws". At least in ACBL-land, one saw this frequently; it was a serious problem until it was fixed by adding the parenthetical "(questions may be asked...)" to L20F1 in 1997. It's not clear whether the writers intended to change the law or merely to restate their original intent in unambiguous terms, but it no longer matters. 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 Apr 5 08:25:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34MOsa22342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:24:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34MOmH22338 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:24:49 +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 g34MDpM04231; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:13:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:12:20 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020404171359-R01050000-5A322580-47EF-11D6-A7E6-BAB3EF260146-0904-0108@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 4/4/02, Eric Landau wrote: >It seems silly to imply that the entire written explanation is an >appropriate response at the table to being asked about the meaning of a >single call covered by it, I had that thought. :-) It occurs to me now that the way to deal with this, at least for Mid-Chart conventions, may be to say, for example, "2NT shows a weak preempt in either minor. We have a written description here if you'd like to know more". Of course, you might run afoul of the woman who once said to me "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions." >not to mention the need to reserve time in the round for the rest of >the auction and the play. Yes, this can be a problem. I'm not sure the laws are sympathetic to it, though. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 Apr 5 08:55:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Mrw322366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:53:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34MrpH22359 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:53:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g34MguM07628; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:42:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:33:26 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020404174304-R01050000-6A4C0400-47F3-11D6-A7E6-BAB3EF260146-0904-0108@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 4/4/02, Brian Meadows wrote: >Well, I can understand Fred Gitelman's position, software being >my living as well. I wasn't speaking of Fred Gitelman. I don't remember the guy's name, but it wasn't Fred. >Programmers are not charities. You write >software to specifications, and if the client later changes their >mind as to what was needed, then it costs more money to rewrite >it. No money, no rewrite. I understand that. >In any event, to require online bridge to be 100% in compliance >with the current Laws is to live in cloud-cuckoo land. Sorry if >that sounds harsh, Ed, but I can't put it any other way. Online >bridge *is* different, played under different circumstances, >there *are* factors in there which are not covered in the Laws. > >Let me give you just the one most obvious example from a *long* >list. [snip example] I think the laws regarding hesitations are still usable in OLB, given that players (and TDs) keep the constraints of the system in mind. IOW, a delay that would equate to "unwonted hesitation" in f2f bridge would not necessarily so equate in OLB, *because* of the factors you mention. Other laws may or may not require changes in the online environment. That's for the WBFLC to say. I have apparently gored your ox. So be it. I have nothing more to say on the subject. 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 Apr 5 08:55:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Ms1d22369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:54:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34MrsH22364 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:53:55 +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 g34MgxM07749; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:42:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 17:18:51 -0500 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404142959.00abd750@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <20020404174307-R01050000-6C15C780-47F3-11D6-A7E6-BAB3EF260146-0904-0108@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 4/4/02, Eric Landau wrote: >Any bona fide[*] question about the opponents' >agreements is legitimate, and must be answered as fully and completely >as one would be required to answer a question about a call actually made. > >[*] By "bona fide" I mean any question to which the questioner >genuinely believes he needs the answer to best select his own >subsequent call[s]; the right to request disclosure of the opponents' >bidding methods is limited only by various prohibitions against asking >questions for reasons other than wanting to know the answer (e.g. to >stall, harass or intimidate (per L74), or to communicate with one's >partner (per L73)). Another example: just out of curiousity. But your first paragraph raises a question: how are players to know that a question is bona fide? Assume it? Call the TD? Ask RHO? ("Do you really need to know, or are you just trying to intimidate me?") It may be that you are right, but it would be much simpler, IMO, if you're not. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 09:31:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34NUl922402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:30:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g34NUfH22398 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:30:42 +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 g34NJwo16055 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:19:58 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 00:17:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: [BLML] UI No.313 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk St John's Wood rubber Bridge Club in the inter club KO's last 32. game all, imps, 4 card major, weak NT, almost no conventions. AJ98xx Axxx A xx 1S P 2C P 2H P 3D P (4sf! wahey, I get to use the alert card) 3S P 4H P totally out of tempo 4H bid. But guarantees a 4-card fit ? and a good hand (ie 4H is safe facing one of my openers) Is pass a LA to 4S/5D? (fwiw I prefer 5D to 4S but that's by the by) 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 Apr 5 09:45:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g34Njbl22419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:45:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g34NjWH22415 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:45:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04742; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:34:52 -0800 Message-Id: <200204042334.PAA04742@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] UI No.313 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:17:22 +0100." Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 15:34:52 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > St John's Wood rubber Bridge Club in the inter club KO's last 32. > > game all, imps, 4 card major, weak NT, almost no conventions. > > AJ98xx > Axxx > A > xx > > 1S P 2C P > 2H P 3D P (4sf! wahey, I get to use the alert card) > 3S P 4H P totally out of tempo 4H bid. But guarantees a 4-card fit > ? and a good hand (ie 4H is safe facing one of my openers) > > Is pass a LA to 4S/5D? (fwiw I prefer 5D to 4S but that's by the by) What would it have meant if responder had bid 4H at his second turn? -- 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 Apr 5 10:44:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g350gxv22480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:42:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g350grH22476 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:42:53 +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 g350WAo16191 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:32:10 +0100 Message-ID: <1T2KYIAvAPr8Ewmq@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 01:30:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] UI No.313 References: <200204042334.PAA04742@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200204042334.PAA04742@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200204042334.PAA04742@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >John Probst wrote: > >> St John's Wood rubber Bridge Club in the inter club KO's last 32. >> >> game all, imps, 4 card major, weak NT, almost no conventions. >> >> AJ98xx >> Axxx >> A >> xx >> >> 1S P 2C P >> 2H P 3D P (4sf! wahey, I get to use the alert card) >> 3S P 4H P totally out of tempo 4H bid. But guarantees a 4-card fit >> ? and a good hand (ie 4H is safe facing one of my openers) >> >> Is pass a LA to 4S/5D? (fwiw I prefer 5D to 4S but that's by the by) > >What would it have meant if responder had bid 4H at his second turn? delayed game raise, but no significant extras, not suitable for a splinter. The 4th suit sequence is probably stronger > > -- 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/ -- 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 Apr 5 10:53:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g350rQu22493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:53:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailserver.link.net.id (mailserver.link.net.id [202.137.3.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g350rIH22489 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:53:19 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 355696 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 00:39:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO u4q5d0) ([202.137.18.35]) (envelope-sender ) by mailserver.link.net.id (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 5 Apr 2002 00:39:32 -0000 Message-ID: <000701c1dc3a$9930a340$231289ca@u4q5d0> From: "bert toar polii" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200204041628.LAA08211@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] misinformation Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:41:16 +0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Teams Tournament (Djarum International Tournament) Using Screen N/S VULN. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 11:28 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] misinformation > > From: Martin Sinot > > It seems to me that North is giving the correct explanation. > > Why do you say that? His hand seems consistent with either meaning, > depending on exactly what "invitational" means. (Give South > Axx Axx Kxxx xxx, and 3NT needs only a 2-1 diamond break.) > > As Eric says, the bridge judgment that 3H is automatic is sufficient to > justify the decision, but it seems an odd judgment to me. However, the > original message did not give the vulnerability, the form of scoring, > or any other information, so perhaps the ruling would be understandable > if all the facts were known. > > On the surface, however, I think makes a difference what the correct > explanation of 3D was. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 11:01:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3510i822509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:00:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3510dH22505 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:00:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05376; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:49:58 -0800 Message-Id: <200204050049.QAA05376@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] UI No.313 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 Apr 2002 01:30:39 +0100." <1T2KYIAvAPr8Ewmq@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:49:58 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > In article <200204042334.PAA04742@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan > writes > > > >John Probst wrote: > > > >> St John's Wood rubber Bridge Club in the inter club KO's last 32. > >> > >> game all, imps, 4 card major, weak NT, almost no conventions. > >> > >> AJ98xx > >> Axxx > >> A > >> xx > >> > >> 1S P 2C P > >> 2H P 3D P (4sf! wahey, I get to use the alert card) > >> 3S P 4H P totally out of tempo 4H bid. But guarantees a 4-card fit > >> ? and a good hand (ie 4H is safe facing one of my openers) > >> > >> Is pass a LA to 4S/5D? (fwiw I prefer 5D to 4S but that's by the by) > > > >What would it have meant if responder had bid 4H at his second turn? > > delayed game raise, but no significant extras, not suitable for a > splinter. The 4th suit sequence is probably stronger OK, in that case, the auction says that partner has a hand with a little slam interest, and the UI suggests that partner has a hand with MORE than a little slam interest. IMHO, you have to make some sort of try opposite a hand with even a mild slam interest, so passing isn't really a LA. -- 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 Apr 5 11:01:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3511K322521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:01:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3511EH22517 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:01:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-238-35.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.238.35]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g350o8vV020157 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:50:21 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 19:50:08 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: <8qspaugctpnjbum9g9fhhrlhs3isnf1qfo@4ax.com> References: <200204042059.PAA08579@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200204042059.PAA08579@cfa183.harvard.edu> 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 Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:59:50 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Brian Meadows >> You *do* get lost packets across the internet >[and other reasons omitted] >... >> As far as online >> bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws concerning hesitations >> out of the window, > >You seem to have refuted your own example. > I don't think so. >If the Internet causes hesitations, then they do not come from partner, >nor do they suggest one action over another. The Laws cope with this >situation just fine; no need to toss them out the window. But how does a player determine whether the hesitation was a real one by partner, and thus can carry UI, or was due to external reasons, and thus carries no UI? Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 13:25:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g353P6C22607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:25:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g353P1H22603 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:25:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g353FM520146 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:15:22 -0900 Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 18:12:09 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] UI No.313 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > St John's Wood rubber Bridge Club in the inter club KO's last 32. > > game all, imps, 4 card major, weak NT, almost no conventions. > AJ98xx > Axxx > A > xx > > 1S P 2C P > 2H P 3D P (4sf! wahey, I get to use the alert card) > 3S P 4H P totally out of tempo 4H bid. But guarantees a 4-card fit > ? and a good hand (ie 4H is safe facing one of my openers) > > Is pass a LA to 4S/5D? (fwiw I prefer 5D to 4S but that's by the by) Judging from the first few replies I am going to be in the minority: In the world of 5-card majors, 1S-then-2H-then-3S guarantees 6+ spades and 4 hearts. Playing 4-card majors, if I remember, it's quite rare you open 1S with only 4 as there is usually another 4-card suit to open instead, so it seems that even playing 4CMs that the 6-4 is pretty much promised. It is hard to come up with a 6-4 hand with opening strength that has more than 6 losers. It's nice that you have aces. (If your partner has any slam interest he ought to have a fistful of kings and be happy to use Blackwood if he cares.) It's not nice that you have xx opposite your partner's best suit. All in all I think you have neither more nor less than normal for your bidding so far, and find Pass not only an LA but a standout. I'd be adjusting in a heartbeat if you reached 6-making-hearts after bidding on over the hesitation and 4H. BTW, does partner really promise 4 hearts? Can't he be 1-3-4-5 with his strength concentrated in clubs and hearts-- x KQT Txxx AKJ9x or similar? 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 Apr 5 14:01:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3541Oi22641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:01:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3541JH22637 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:01:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA26441; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:02:53 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 13:47:46 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) To: "erdnbaum::.gov.au":"netvision.net.il:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au, cyaxares@lineone.net.gov.au Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:42:41 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/04/2002 01:47:42 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Can you please translate into simple English. >"Any alliterative allusion answers." Another important point that should be considered by the General Review, is the use of simple English in the Laws, especially considering that the Laws may be used (or translated) by those for whom English is only a second language. For example, my previous paragraph should have been two sentences instead of one. :-) 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 Apr 5 14:07:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35470Z22669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:07:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3546tH22665 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:06:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp259058pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.55.144.144]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Feb 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GU200149TL8DC@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:55:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:49:17 -0500 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: Bridge Laws Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020404224136.00c91ac0@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: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:15 AM 4/4/2002 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 4/4/02, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >Except for the last sentence, this is the de-facto rule in online bridge: > >if you try to make an insufficient bid, then the system won't accept that. > >This, to my mind, is one of the problems with online bridge. There was a >case some time ago on the Zone, in which the >software would not allow some irregularity (sorry, I don't remember the >details) to be handled in accordance with the >laws. I pointed that out (I think in rec.games.bridge) and ended up in an >email conversation with the guy running that >site. His position was that the program had been written, he didn't have >the money (this from Microsoft!) to have it >re-written, so if it wasn't in compliance with the laws, that was just too >bad. IMNSHO, if people are going to write >software to allow people to play bridge on line, that software either >conforms to the laws, or what they're playing isn't >Contract Bridge. Of course, the guy running the Zone, didn't care about my >opinion, and probably neither does anybody >else running such a site. But it's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :-) Rules such as insufficient bids can be handled differently because they are effectively "actions not transmitted across a screen," and we already have rules for this. If South makes an insufficient bid and West objects before the tray is passed, there is no penalty because North has no information. Likewise with penalty cards. If West says in a chat window, "I have the S2, you moron!", then the S2 would be a penalty card, and a TD could enforce the rules. But if West tried to play the S2 on a club trick, East would not see the play, and thus West could take the S2 back into his hand without penalty. You do lose the opportunity to accept an opponent's illegal action. If declarer wins a trick in his hand and then clicks on a card which is in dummy, declarer's RHO cannot follow to the trick. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 16:04:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3563mF22723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:03:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3563hH22719 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:03:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id QAA21070; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:05:41 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:50:35 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Absolutely top director To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: soundconnex@mpx.com.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:45:30 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/04/2002 03:50:31 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread "Insufficient Bid", Walt Flory wrote: [big snip] >The directors at the Washington-Baltimore-Northern >Virginia area sectionals, regionals, and of course >the upcoming National are all absolutely top drawer. [big snip] I was privileged to commence my bridge career in the provincial city of Hobart, Tasmania. This was because of the excellent local director, Roger Penny, who soundly instructed me in the implications for Active Ethics of Law 16 and Law 75. Roger then achieved further value by founding the Australian Bridge Directors Association, and serving as its inaugural President. 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 Apr 5 17:03:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3572r622775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:02:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3572lH22771 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:02:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.67.181] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16tNV0-000BvF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:47:02 +0100 Message-ID: <002201c1dc6e$783d96a0$b543e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:51:55 +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: "erdnbaum::.gov.au : netvision.net.il:>" <@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: ; Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 4:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > Another important point that should be considered > by the General Review, is the use of simple English > in the Laws, especially considering that the Laws > may be used (or translated) by those for whom > English is only a second language. > +=+ Scores of people have said it. Those doing the job aim at it. There is hope. ~ 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 Apr 5 19:46:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g359isb22844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:44:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g359ikH22840 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:44:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3206.bb.online.no [80.212.220.134]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA00310 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:33:46 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002901c1dc84$fc4d4240$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer programs (was General ....) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:33:46 +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 The way our society is dependent upon computers makes it an excellent excuse: "The computer doesn't allow this", an excuse that shouldn't be accepted more than the excuse: "My pen doesn't permit me to write this". The program manufacturer works out a program according to specs - yes, but computers, and programs, are tools - not Gods. Blaming a computer is like a carpenter blaming his hammer for being unable to use 4" spikes where required, he cannot hammer heavier things than 2" nails. So a prime requirement for any computer program is that it meets the requirements of the real world which it is to serve. If not, it had either be modified - or the users accept that the program does not comply with such requirements. Which could lead to a bridge competition not being played according to the relevant laws ??? Or would anybody accept being denied their wages because of a computer problem? My bet is they would say (and they SHOULD say): "I don't care about the computer, that is not my problem. I don't care how you do it, but I shall have my money!" It is the same thing really. (You offer a service, but do you provide it?) Sven From: "Brian Meadows" > >This, to my mind, is one of the problems with online bridge. > >There was a case some time ago on the Zone, in which the > >software would not allow some irregularity (sorry, I don't > >remember the details) to be handled in accordance with the > >laws. I pointed that out (I think in rec.games.bridge) and > >ended up in an email conversation with the guy running that > >site. His position was that the program had been written, he > >didn't have the money (this from Microsoft!) to have it > >re-written, so if it wasn't in compliance with the laws, that > >was just too bad. IMNSHO, if people are going to write > >software to allow people to play bridge on line, that software > >either conforms to the laws, or what they're playing isn't > >Contract Bridge. Of course, the guy running the Zone, didn't > >care about my opinion, and probably neither does anybody > >else running such a site. But it's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :-) > > > > Well, I can understand Fred Gitelman's position, software being > my living as well. Programmers are not charities. You write > software to specifications, and if the client later changes their > mind as to what was needed, then it costs more money to rewrite > it. No money, no rewrite. > > In any event, to require online bridge to be 100% in compliance > with the current Laws is to live in cloud-cuckoo land. Sorry if > that sounds harsh, Ed, but I can't put it any other way. Online > bridge *is* different, played under different circumstances, > there *are* factors in there which are not covered in the Laws. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 20:13:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35ACrk22866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:12:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35ACkH22862 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:12:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g35A1iW01036; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:01:45 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g35A1lh00986; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:01:47 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:01:47 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Sven Pran cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer programs (was General ....) In-Reply-To: <002901c1dc84$fc4d4240$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > The way our society is dependent upon computers makes it > an excellent excuse: "The computer doesn't allow this", an > excuse that shouldn't be accepted more than the excuse: > "My pen doesn't permit me to write this". > > The program manufacturer works out a program according > to specs - yes, but computers, and programs, are tools - not > Gods. Blaming a computer is like a carpenter blaming his > hammer for being unable to use 4" spikes where required, > he cannot hammer heavier things than 2" nails. > > So a prime requirement for any computer program is that it > meets the requirements of the real world which it is to serve. > If not, it had either be modified - or the users accept that > the program does not comply with such requirements. > > Which could lead to a bridge competition not being played > according to the relevant laws ??? Clearly, any program should allow you to play bridge according to the procedures described in the laws. However, a large part of the laws deals with solving the problems resulting from unintentional errors in an established procedure (insufficient bid, lead out of turn, revoke, etc). If a tool can be used to avoid that these errors occur in the first place, then why shouldn't we use that, even if that effectively means that law dealing with the irregularity is no longer needed? 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 Fri Apr 5 20:25:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35APTu22879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:25:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g35APNH22875 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 20:25:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3206.bb.online.no [80.212.220.134]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA26853; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:14:09 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006c01c1dc8a$a0736840$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer programs (was General ....) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 12:14:09 +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: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > The way our society is dependent upon computers makes it > > an excellent excuse: "The computer doesn't allow this", an > > excuse that shouldn't be accepted more than the excuse: > > "My pen doesn't permit me to write this". > > > > The program manufacturer works out a program according > > to specs - yes, but computers, and programs, are tools - not > > Gods. Blaming a computer is like a carpenter blaming his > > hammer for being unable to use 4" spikes where required, > > he cannot hammer heavier things than 2" nails. > > > > So a prime requirement for any computer program is that it > > meets the requirements of the real world which it is to serve. > > If not, it had either be modified - or the users accept that > > the program does not comply with such requirements. > > > > Which could lead to a bridge competition not being played > > according to the relevant laws ??? > > Clearly, any program should allow you to play bridge according to the > procedures described in the laws. > > However, a large part of the laws deals with solving the problems > resulting from unintentional errors in an established procedure > (insufficient bid, lead out of turn, revoke, etc). If a tool can be used > to avoid that these errors occur in the first place, then why shouldn't we > use that, even if that effectively means that law dealing with the > irregularity is no longer needed? Absolutely, and I was not commenting against that. This is really the same thing as all the irregularities no longer being relevant when using screens (properly). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 21:02:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35B2An22915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:02:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g35B23H22907 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:02:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g35Ap8323881 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:51:08 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:51 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] UI No.313 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: Gordon Bower > It is hard to come up with a 6-4 hand with opening strength that has > more than 6 losers. It's nice that you have aces. (If your partner has > any slam interest he ought to have a fistful of kings and be happy to > use Blackwood if he cares.) Partner can't use Blackwood with xx (or xxx) in diamonds (unless he is certifiably insane). What would 4C by partner have shown (instead of 4H)? > It's not nice that you have xx opposite your > partner's best suit. > > All in all I think you have neither more nor less than normal for your > bidding so far, and find Pass not only an LA but a standout. Your bidding so far is also consistent with AKJxx,Axxx,xxx,x - and you did tend to deny a diamond control by bidding 3S rather than 3N on the previous round. > I'd be > adjusting in a heartbeat if you reached 6-making-hearts after bidding on > over the hesitation and 4H. > > BTW, does partner really promise 4 hearts? Can't he be 1-3-4-5 with his > strength concentrated in clubs and hearts-- x KQT Txxx AKJ9x or > similar? Wouldn't this hand bid 2NT, or a nearly forcing 3C, over 2H? The play in 4HX opposite eg AQxxx,Axxx,Qx,xx will be a nightmare! 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 Apr 5 21:02:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35B29t22914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:02:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35B21H22905 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 21:02:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g35Ap6k23846 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:51:06 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:51 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) 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: Brian Meadows wrote: > As far as online > bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws concerning hesitations > out of the window, and most people with any experience of online > bridge realise that. Personally I have yet to realise it. "Thinking" hesitations are harder to detect on-line - but far from impossible. If your partner is suffering a poor connection it is often obvious fairly quickly and breaks in tempo don't make any UI available. It's similar to not being under UI constraints if partner breaks tempo because he was obviously distracted at the table (fishing for his ciggys/ordering coffee/earwigging the bitter argument at the next table etc). If the connections at the table are reasonably good then hesitations are just that and you take advantage of the opponents' and avoid bids suggested by partner's - just like face to face. I think I played a couple of hundred hands before I gained sufficient experience of the environment to detect the difference between technological and UI bearing hesitations with reasonable reliability. 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 Apr 5 22:56:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35Ctf123063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:55:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35CtYH23059 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:55:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-238-35.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.238.35]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g35CiRCH009500 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:44:40 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer programs (was General ....) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 07:44:27 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <002901c1dc84$fc4d4240$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <002901c1dc84$fc4d4240$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 Fri, 5 Apr 2002 11:33:46 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: Apologies to the list for the fact that this is far more to do with computers than with bridge, but I think some of Sven's points require a public answer, particularly his parting shot. >The way our society is dependent upon computers makes it >an excellent excuse: "The computer doesn't allow this", an >excuse that shouldn't be accepted more than the excuse: >"My pen doesn't permit me to write this". > I think that's more than a little unfair to end users, who are the people from whom you usually hear that phrase. As far as they are concerned, they're correct that they aren't allowed to do something - and you can't expect a large percentage of end users to distinguish between the software and the hardware. When a spec. tells me to make a particular field read-only, then the end user is entitled to say "The computer won't let me change that information". Damn right it won't. >The program manufacturer works out a program according >to specs - yes, but computers, and programs, are tools - not >Gods. Blaming a computer is like a carpenter blaming his >hammer for being unable to use 4" spikes where required, >he cannot hammer heavier things than 2" nails. > >So a prime requirement for any computer program is that it >meets the requirements of the real world which it is to serve. >If not, it had either be modified - or the users accept that >the program does not comply with such requirements. > We're getting a little off the track here, but I think this is an idealistic view. In many cases, and of course particularly with shrink-wrap software, users do NOT get all the facilities they would like. Even with custom-written software, budgetary constraints usually take precedence over user requirements, at least in my experience. Users are (or should be!) involved in the initial specification, someone with budgetary control then decides which of the user requirements are going to be implemented. >Which could lead to a bridge competition not being played >according to the relevant laws ??? > I think that's entirely possible with online bridge, yes. >Or would anybody accept being denied their wages because >of a computer problem? My bet is they would say (and they >SHOULD say): "I don't care about the computer, that is not >my problem. I don't care how you do it, but I shall have my >money!" > I can remember a large number of the teachers in Philadelphia being denied their wages a couple of years ago because of a computer screw-up. Of course they played merry hell about it, but the fact is that they DID go unpaid until the system was straightened out (a month or two, as I recall). >It is the same thing really. > >(You offer a service, but do you provide it?) > Yes, I do. If I think that a specification has something missing, I consider it to be part of my job to draw it to the client's attention, or to the attention of the team leader if I'm working as part of a larger team. When the client or his representative tells me "I don't care, write it as it's currently specified", then I consider I've fulfilled my responsibilities. There comes a point at which the person who is paying they bill gets what they ask for. I'm not about to lost the work by arguing to the point where I get replaced by another programmer. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 5 23:42:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35Dg2h23093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:42:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35DftH23089 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:41:57 +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 g35DV7o17603 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:31:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 14:29:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] UI No.313 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: > >Gordon Bower > >> It is hard to come up with a 6-4 hand with opening strength that has >> more than 6 losers. It's nice that you have aces. (If your partner has >> any slam interest he ought to have a fistful of kings and be happy to >> use Blackwood if he cares.) > >Partner can't use Blackwood with xx (or xxx) in diamonds (unless he is >certifiably insane). What would 4C by partner have shown (instead of 4H)? > >> It's not nice that you have xx opposite your >> partner's best suit. >> >> All in all I think you have neither more nor less than normal for your >> bidding so far, and find Pass not only an LA but a standout. > >Your bidding so far is also consistent with AKJxx,Axxx,xxx,x - and you did >tend to deny a diamond control by bidding 3S rather than 3N on the >previous round. > I would rebid 3H with a minimum 5-4. I think 3S promises 6. It could still be a 10-count though. >> I'd be >> adjusting in a heartbeat if you reached 6-making-hearts after bidding on >> over the hesitation and 4H. >> >> BTW, does partner really promise 4 hearts? Can't he be 1-3-4-5 with his >> strength concentrated in clubs and hearts-- x KQT Txxx AKJ9x or >> similar? > >Wouldn't this hand bid 2NT, or a nearly forcing 3C, over 2H? The play in >4HX opposite eg AQxxx,Axxx,Qx,xx will be a nightmare! > Either 2NT or 3NT (2NT in our partnership, I think, given our light opening style) >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 Apr 5 23:44:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35DiGX23105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:44:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g35DiBH23101 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:44:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16tTq9-0002e0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:33:17 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020405081009.00a9b860@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:35:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) In-Reply-To: References: <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@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 03:41 PM 4/4/02, brian wrote: >Let me give you just the one most obvious example from a *long* >list. Internet bridge is a world-wide game, I've frequently >played on OKBridge where all four players at the table are on >different continents. That means many hops between the players >and the server. You *do* get lost packets across the internet, >there *are* those who have flaky net connections, and no amount >of pointing to the laws governing hesitations is going to change >that fact. You can't even point at the longer hesitations, people >play online bridge with far more distractions than you would get >at the club, and you just have to accept that. As far as online >bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws concerning hesitations >out of the window, and most people with any experience of online >bridge realise that. > >Now, you can say that this "isn't Contract Bridge", and you're >entitled to that opinion, but I don't think it's just the people >running the site who don't care about your opinion. Given that >hesitations are a fact of life, I think if you told a >cross-section of online players that you didn't think they were >playing bridge, you'd get more than a few answers that suggested >you found something better to do with your time, and they'd be >the polite ones. I'm not disputing Brian's thesis, but this is a particularly unconvincing example. The laws don't deal with hesitations per se; they deal with failures to maintain one's normal tempo. Brain makes a good case that, due the vagaries of the Internet, the "normal tempo" for anyone playing on line is so erratic that no arbitrarily long hesitiation can be considered a deviation from it. On line, the laws governing tempo, like the laws governing insufficient bids, remain in force, and are being followed, notwithstanding that the technology involved has produced an environment in which their provisions for redress of violations will never be invoked. The problem Brian brings up is not inherent in on-line bridge; it is the result of the limited technology with which we currently play it. I would expect that if and when the technology were to improve to the point where any action taken by a player at a virtual table is always instantaneously reflected on the screens of the other three players, the on-line players would want and expect the laws on maintaining tempo to regain their force. 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 Apr 5 23:48:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35DmOv23119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:48:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g35DmJH23115 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:48:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16tTu9-0003Hz-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:37:25 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020405083723.00a9af00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:39:11 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <20020404171359-R01050000-5A322580-47EF-11D6-A7E6-BAB3EF260 146-0904-0108@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 05:12 PM 4/4/02, Ed wrote: >On 4/4/02, Eric Landau wrote: > > >It seems silly to imply that the entire written explanation is an > >appropriate response at the table to being asked about the meaning of a > >single call covered by it, > >I had that thought. :-) It occurs to me now that the way to deal with >this, at least for Mid-Chart conventions, may be to say, for example, >"2NT shows a weak preempt in either minor. We have a written description >here if you'd like to know more". Of course, you might run afoul of the >woman who once said to me "I don't look at convention cards, I ask >questions." My reply would be, "Very well, ma'am, ask away!" 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 Apr 6 00:02:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35E1og23136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 00:01:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g35E1jH23132 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 00:01:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16tU79-0005pi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:50:52 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020405084354.00b9cb80@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 08:52:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <20020404174307-R01050000-6C15C780-47F3-11D6-A7E6-BAB3EF260 146-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404142959.00abd750@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 05:18 PM 4/4/02, Ed wrote: >On 4/4/02, Eric Landau wrote: > > >Any bona fide[*] question about the opponents' > >agreements is legitimate, and must be answered as fully and completely > >as one would be required to answer a question about a call actually > made. > > > >[*] By "bona fide" I mean any question to which the questioner > >genuinely believes he needs the answer to best select his own > >subsequent call[s]; the right to request disclosure of the opponents' > >bidding methods is limited only by various prohibitions against asking > >questions for reasons other than wanting to know the answer (e.g. to > >stall, harass or intimidate (per L74), or to communicate with one's > >partner (per L73)). > >Another example: just out of curiousity. > >But your first paragraph raises a question: how are players to know >that a question is bona fide? Assume it? Call the >TD? Ask RHO? ("Do you really need to know, or are you just trying to >intimidate me?") It may be that you are right, but >it would be much simpler, IMO, if you're not. :-) This is a matter of concern, but it really has nothing to do with asking questions. How are players ever to know that an opponent doing anything apparently legitimate is not in fact in violation of L74, intending to disconcert, harass or intimidate? If it feels to you like you're being disconcerted, harassed or intimidated, you call the TD, and he earns his fee by making his judgment. It doesn't matter whether your opponent was asking about your methods during the auction, snapping his cards during the play, or just sitting there glaring at you. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 6 00:13:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35ECgh23153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 00:12:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35ECaH23149 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 00:12:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-238-35.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.238.35]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g35E1UCH024714 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:01:42 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:01:30 -0500 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <4.3.2.7.0.20020405081009.00a9b860@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020405081009.00a9b860@pop.starpower.net> 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, 05 Apr 2002 08:35:03 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >The problem Brian brings up is not inherent in on-line bridge; it is >the result of the limited technology with which we currently play >it. I would expect that if and when the technology were to improve to >the point where any action taken by a player at a virtual table is >always instantaneously reflected on the screens of the other three >players, the on-line players would want and expect the laws on >maintaining tempo to regain their force. > Agreed, but I don't expect to see it happen. Usage is always likely to soak up the current bandwidth - it's been a while since I did my network theory, but AFAIR you see degradation of performance anytime that usage reaches 20% of capacity, and it's going to take some MAJOR advances in technology before we can get that kind of redundancy. I think the chances of the whole net grinding to a halt in a deluge of spam are far greater. 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 Apr 6 00:31:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35ES3723166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 00:28:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g35ERvH23162 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 00:27:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from 66-44-125-60.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([66.44.125.60] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp01.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16tUWV-0004Ac-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:17:03 -0500 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020405090937.00a9b6a0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 09:18:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) In-Reply-To: <8qspaugctpnjbum9g9fhhrlhs3isnf1qfo@4ax.com> References: <200204042059.PAA08579@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200204042059.PAA08579@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:50 PM 4/4/02, brian wrote: >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:59:50 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: > > >If the Internet causes hesitations, then they do not come from partner, > >nor do they suggest one action over another. The Laws cope with this > >situation just fine; no need to toss them out the window. > >But how does a player determine whether the hesitation was a real >one by partner, and thus can carry UI, or was due to external >reasons, and thus carries no UI? He can't, fortunately. That's why there isn't a problem. Think about it. I believe we may have actually found a situation in which those f-----g lost packets and flaky Internet connections that give me so much trouble in my professional life work to our advantage! 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 Apr 6 01:08:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35F7dR23189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 01:07:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g35F7XH23185 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 01:07:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0117.bb.online.no [80.212.208.117]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA25370 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:56:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004a01c1dcb2$143399e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <002901c1dc84$fc4d4240$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer programs (was General ....) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 16:56:34 +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: "Brian Meadows" > Apologies to the list for the fact that this is far more to do > with computers than with bridge, but I think some of Sven's > points require a public answer, particularly his parting shot. My matter should really be very far from bridge matters, yes. But when I see "excuses" blaming the computer popping up here as well I cannot help reacting. In the 35 years I have been involved with computing some way or another I have not seen a single case where a computer (or a computer program) was a party in an agreement or a contract. There is no reason to accept a computer program deficiency as an excuse unless the party responsible can really claim "force majeure" (which lack of budget to fix a known problem is NOT). Enough of this from me 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 Apr 6 01:55:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35Ft4I23212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 01:55:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35FsxH23208 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 01:54:59 +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 KAA29338 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:44:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA06132 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:43:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 10:43:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204051543.KAA06132@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Brian Meadows > But how does a player determine whether the hesitation was a real > one by partner, and thus can carry UI, or was due to external > reasons, and thus carries no UI? That's the point. If the player can't tell what caused the delay, it doesn't suggest one action over another. This is quite similar to the situation with screens. As Tim says, sometimes you can tell that the hesitation came from your partner and implies something about his hand, and then you follow L73C. (Enforcement may be problematic, depending on the game environment, but the principle remains.) Again this is quite similar to the situation with screens. As Eric says, if the technology changes, the situation might change. It should be possible to have the computer insert random delays if that is thought advisable. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 6 03:31:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35HUwO23285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 03:30:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35HUqH23281 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 03:30:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d238.iae.nl [212.61.3.238]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E99720F8E for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:19:56 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <002f01c1dcc5$e8051600$ee033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <20020404102602-R01050000-5CC45900-47B6-11D6-8A27-BDB540445DF3-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 19:16:43 +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 The same happens when you play with one bidding box a table: it is much cheaper, there are no insufficient bids and less calls out of turn. Maybe there are more advantages but it is not according to the rules. Written auction is accepted, but will prevent a number of calls out of turn. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > On 4/4/02, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >Except for the last sentence, this is the de-facto rule in online bridge: > >if you try to make an insufficient bid, then the system won't accept that. > > This, to my mind, is one of the problems with online bridge. There was a case some time ago on the Zone, in which the > software would not allow some irregularity (sorry, I don't remember the details) to be handled in accordance with the > laws. I pointed that out (I think in rec.games.bridge) and ended up in an email conversation with the guy running that > site. His position was that the program had been written, he didn't have the money (this from Microsoft!) to have it > re-written, so if it wasn't in compliance with the laws, that was just too bad. IMNSHO, if people are going to write > software to allow people to play bridge on line, that software either conforms to the laws, or what they're playing isn't > Contract Bridge. Of course, the guy running the Zone, didn't care about my opinion, and probably neither does anybody > else running such a site. But it's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :-) > > Regards, > > Ed > > mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com > pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site > pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage > > 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 Sat Apr 6 08:58:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g35MvXR23418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 08:57:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g35MvPH23414 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 08:57:27 +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 RAA03440 for ; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:46:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA08355 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:46:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:46:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204052246.RAA08355@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Note: the following is of theoretical or philosophical interest only. Skip it if you are interested only in practical questions. > From: Eric Landau > The "merry-go-round" problem occurs only > when the meanings of an opponent's subsequent possible calls determines > the meaning of one's own. In the cases Sven is talking about (if I've > understood him correctly), the meanings of one's potential calls don't > depend on the meanings of opponent's subsequent possible calls, only > the choice of which call to make does. This raises the question of what constitutes the "meaning" of a call. If "natural, non-forcing" is the full description of the meaning, then I agree it doesn't change. If, however, "meaning" includes the likely hand types or overall offensive or defensive strength, then a _systemic_ change based on opponents' agreements is a change in meaning. Let me offer a concrete example: at Table 1, and later at Table 2, you see a strong, artificial 1C opened on your right. Let's say both show any and all hands with 16+ HCP. By an amazing coincidence, you find yourself holding the same cards at both tables and are debating between a 1S or 2S overcall, both natural and obstructive. At Table 1, the opponents are playing Precision, and you decide to bid 1S. At Table 2, they are playing a relay system, and you know (or find out) that 1S won't kill their relays but 2S will. So you take a bit more risk and bid 2S. Have the meanings of your 1S and 2S bids changed? I claim that if you do this enough so your partner is aware of the change, the meaning has indeed changed. In particular, your minimum offensive strength for 2S (and therefore your upper limit for 1S) is lower against relay systems. In practice, this is unlikely to cause a problem, but one can imagine opponents who want to adjust their 1C response methods based on the strength range you can have for pass, 1S, and 2S. Of course the standard example -- light preempts against takeout doublers, sound preempts against penalty doublers -- is merely an extension of the same principle. In both cases, the preempt is natural and weak; the only question is the limit of how weak. Once the variation is significant and known to partner, I claim it is a change in meaning. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 6 14:00:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g363xJk23513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:59:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g363xDH23509 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 13:59:14 +1000 (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 4DAF7ZN8; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 22:48:17 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020405222749.027da730@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 22:48:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Walt Flory Subject: [BLML] Top Directors In-Reply-To: <200204052246.RAA08355@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 It has come to my attention that we all like to hear a little praise now and then. For those not familiar with this area, the two directors that are head and shoulders above the rest around the Washington, DC-northern Virginia-Baltimore area (and there are many fine directors around here) are: 1. Millard Nachtway - Director in Charge at all regional, national (and some sectional) tournaments in the Mid Atlantic Bridge Conference which is made up of ACBL Districts 6 and 7, and covers all of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia as well as the western half of Tennessee. 2. Doug Grove - a top notch director who works at a lot of the MABC tournaments and is also in charge of training and supervising the directors in a number of districts to the north and west of here, including one in Canada. Hope to see you all here at the Nationals in Washington, DC in July. 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 Apr 6 14:25:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g364PYp23555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 14:25:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g364PRH23551 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 14:25:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.95.194]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU400358P41YM@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:14:27 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:16:08 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] trimming To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001301c1dd2a$2a01a3c0$c25f003e@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_4N7kRbROyYBD01VxuiKDDQ)" 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_4N7kRbROyYBD01VxuiKDDQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT I'll be obliged to anyone who will be kind enough to tell me how to *trim [snip?] a message. Thanks Israel --Boundary_(ID_4N7kRbROyYBD01VxuiKDDQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
I'll be obliged to anyone who will be kind enough to tell me how to *trim [snip?] a message.
Thanks  
Israel
--Boundary_(ID_4N7kRbROyYBD01VxuiKDDQ)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 6 16:39:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g366can23611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:38:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g366cUH23607 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:38:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.32.176] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16tjfT-0006qD-00; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 07:27:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c1dd34$3dd08c40$b020e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <200204042059.PAA08579@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200204042059.PAA08579@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020405090937.00a9b6a0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 23:38:49 +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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 3:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) > > I believe we may have actually found a situation in which > those f-----g lost packets and flaky Internet connections > that give me so much trouble in my professional life work > to our advantage! > +=+ In its CoP the WBF has tried (but not succeeded) to introduce some of those flaky connections into play behind screens ! +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 6 18:48:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g368lkc23667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 18:47:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g368ldH23663 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 18:47:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0159.bb.online.no [80.212.208.159]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA09981; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 10:36:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001201c1dd46$2788a3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , References: <001301c1dd2a$2a01a3c0$c25f003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] trimming Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 10:36:31 +0200 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'll be obliged to anyone who will be kind enough to tell me how to *trim [snip?] a message. > Thanks > Israel After you have chosen the message with "Reply All" and removed the extraneous adresses, leaving only "bridge-laws" (unless you want to send separate copies to everybody in addition to the copy they will receive automatically from BLML) you place your cursor at the beginning of the text you want to "snip". Then while holding your left mouse-button pressed you draw the cursor to the end of the text to be removed. You will notice the text will be "marked", and if you start typing something, what you type will complelety replace the marked text. If you just press "Delete" the marked text will be deleted. Simple as that. regards Sven PS. I intentionally left your address with this message so you will get to copies, just to show you that you can safely delete all addresses except BLML with all responses. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 6 19:19:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g369J0g23689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 19:19:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g369IsH23685 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 19:18:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.185]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU500J3K2OYG8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:07:50 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 12:09:34 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] trimming To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Sven Pran Message-id: <001a01c1dd53$28b59f20$b94d003e@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: <001301c1dd2a$2a01a3c0$c25f003e@erdnbaum> <001201c1dd46$2788a3c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] trimming > From: "Israel Erdnbaum" > > > I'll be obliged to anyone who will be kind enough to tell me how to *trim > [snip?] a message. > > Thanks > > Israel > > After you have chosen the message with "Reply All" > and removed the extraneous adresses, leaving only > "bridge-laws" (unless you want to send separate > copies to everybody in addition to the copy they will > receive automatically from BLML) you place your > cursor at the beginning of the text you want to "snip". > > Then while holding your left mouse-button pressed > you draw the cursor to the end of the text to be > removed. You will notice the text will be "marked", > and if you start typing something, what you type will > complelety replace the marked text. If you just > press "Delete" the marked text will be deleted. > > Simple as that. > > regards Sven > > PS. I intentionally left your address with this message > so you will get to copies, just to show you that you > can safely delete all addresses except BLML with all > responses. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 7 04:31:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g36IUPB24352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 04:30:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g36IUIH24348 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 04:30:20 +1000 (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 g36IJL816239 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 10:19:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001e01c1dd97$8a4bace0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200204052246.RAA08355@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 10:18:48 -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: "Steve Willner" > At Table 1, the opponents are playing Precision, and you decide to bid > 1S. At Table 2, they are playing a relay system, and you know (or find > out) that 1S won't kill their relays but 2S will. So you take a bit > more risk and bid 2S. > > Have the meanings of your 1S and 2S bids changed? I claim that if you > do this enough so your partner is aware of the change, the meaning has > indeed changed. In particular, your minimum offensive strength for 2S > (and therefore your upper limit for 1S) is lower against relay > systems. > > In practice, this is unlikely to cause a problem, but one can imagine > opponents who want to adjust their 1C response methods based on the > strength range you can have for pass, 1S, and 2S. While the response methods could be considered a countermeasure to the strength ranges of 1S/2S overcalls, and therefore changeable, I believe it would be illegal in ACBL-land to adjust responses based on that alone. This is a bit of a gray area, admittedly. > > Of course the standard example -- light preempts against takeout > doublers, sound preempts against penalty doublers -- is merely an > extension of the same principle. Yes. And that policy is illegal in ACBL-land. In last week's Pacific Southwest Regional, a strong pair playing against Bill Bartley and me in a knockout session were playing light overcalls (noted on the CC). Sure enough, one of them overcalled 1S with S-Q108xx H-xxx D-AJx C-xx, pretty light. This got whacked for -300, while their teammates were in a hopeless 3NT with our cards. Someone remarked later that it was pretty dumb to play such light overcalls against penalty doublers, but the ACBL says they could not have altered their overcalling policy after learning we play penalty doubles. Of course they could tighten up a bit, but not to the extent that the CC no longer reflects their overcalling practices. You have to play what is on your card, and you can't change your card after the start of a session for reasons like this. > In both cases, the preempt is natural > and weak; the only question is the limit of how weak. > Once the > variation is significant and known to partner, I claim it is a change > in meaning. Yes, and if the variation is large enough to constitute a change in system, or make the CC incorrect, it's illegal. 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 Apr 7 20:34:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g37AXJj24785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 20:33:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g37AX9H24781 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 20:33:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.46] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16u9ns-000FWQ-00; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 11:21:45 +0100 Message-ID: <005701c1de1e$2dcd50e0$163be150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200204052246.RAA08355@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001e01c1dd97$8a4bace0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 11:21:49 +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: Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? > > In last week's Pacific Southwest Regional, a strong pair > playing against Bill Bartley and me in a knockout session > were playing light overcalls (noted on the CC). Sure enough, > one of them overcalled 1S with S-Q108xx H-xxx D-AJx C-xx, > pretty light. This got whacked for -300, while their > teammates were in a hopeless 3NT with our cards. > Someone remarked later that it was pretty dumb to play > such light overcalls against penalty doublers, but the > ACBL says they could not have altered their overcalling > policy after learning we play penalty doubles. Of course > they could tighten up a bit, but not to the extent that > the CC no longer reflects their overcalling practices. You > have to play what is on your card, and you can't change > your card after the start of a session for reasons like this. > +=+ I would presume, however, that no-one would seek to force a player to actually make an overcall if his judgement tells him that the risk outweighs the advantages? Any such regulation would be a regulation of 'style and judgement', would it not? (40E1). The example above is considerably stronger than the lower limit for the kind of overcalls that my glory days partnerships used - with disclosed rescue mechanisms, of course, and respect for opponents. Anyone using such methods must have regard to occasion, to judgement and to 'the better part of valour'. ~ 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 Apr 8 08:22:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g37MLfo25096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:21:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lexington.fscv.net ([216.206.44.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g37MJgH25091 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:20:04 +1000 (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 4DAF7Z9B; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 18:08:28 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020407180455.026fe340@mail.fscv.net> X-Sender: Walt.Flory@mail.fscv.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 18:08:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Walt Flory Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328145620.00ab11c0@pop.starpower.net> References: <002801c1d672$7a28e200$1d00e150@pacific> <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/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk
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.

Very well said Eric. I wish the voices of the ACBL membership had more chances to be heard.

Walt Flory

The above is an excerpt. The whole text follows.


At 04:01 PM 3/28/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote:
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           &nbs= p;         ehaa@starpower.net
1107 Dale Drive            = ;     (301) 608-0347
Silver Spring MD 20910-1607     Fax (301) 589-4618

--
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with
"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/=


-- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 8 08:35:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g37MZLO25110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:35:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g37MZGH25105 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 08:35:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-76.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.76] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16uL57-0003ow-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 07 Apr 2002 18:24:17 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020407173210.00ba2470@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2002 18:23:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <200204052246.RAA08355@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 06:46 PM 4/5/02, Steve wrote: >Note: the following is of theoretical or philosophical interest only. >Skip it if you are interested only in practical questions. > > > From: Eric Landau > > The "merry-go-round" problem occurs only > > when the meanings of an opponent's subsequent possible calls > determines > > the meaning of one's own. In the cases Sven is talking about (if I've > > understood him correctly), the meanings of one's potential calls don't > > depend on the meanings of opponent's subsequent possible calls, only > > the choice of which call to make does. > >This raises the question of what constitutes the "meaning" of a call. >If "natural, non-forcing" is the full description of the meaning, then >I agree it doesn't change. If, however, "meaning" includes the likely >hand types or overall offensive or defensive strength, then a >_systemic_ change based on opponents' agreements is a change in >meaning. > >Let me offer a concrete example: at Table 1, and later at Table 2, you >see a strong, artificial 1C opened on your right. Let's say both show >any and all hands with 16+ HCP. By an amazing coincidence, you find >yourself holding the same cards at both tables and are debating between >a 1S or 2S overcall, both natural and obstructive. > >At Table 1, the opponents are playing Precision, and you decide to bid >1S. At Table 2, they are playing a relay system, and you know (or find >out) that 1S won't kill their relays but 2S will. So you take a bit >more risk and bid 2S. > >Have the meanings of your 1S and 2S bids changed? I claim that if you >do this enough so your partner is aware of the change, the meaning has >indeed changed. In particular, your minimum offensive strength for 2S >(and therefore your upper limit for 1S) is lower against relay >systems. > >In practice, this is unlikely to cause a problem, but one can imagine >opponents who want to adjust their 1C response methods based on the >strength range you can have for pass, 1S, and 2S. > >Of course the standard example -- light preempts against takeout >doublers, sound preempts against penalty doublers -- is merely an >extension of the same principle. In both cases, the preempt is natural >and weak; the only question is the limit of how weak. Once the >variation is significant and known to partner, I claim it is a change >in meaning. The broader philosophical issue here is one we have met in other contexts: how to draw the line between variations in one's bidding based on style and judgment, and variations in one's bidding based on method and system. In Steve's example, you choose between 1S or 2S depending on opponents' methods. In other cases, you might choose depending on your opponents' reputations as strong or weak players, or your own experience, which might tell you that one opposing pair is quicker with those low-level doubles than another, or simple confidence in your ability to read strangers. Or it might depend on whether your horoscope that morning told you to be bold or cautious. Or, despite your explicit agreement being nothing more than "natural and obstructive", you might choose based on the quality of your spades, or you might reserve 2S for hands that are sure to be worthless on defense. Most of us, at the table, do the analog of all of these things at one time or another. How much of the above is incorporated into the "meanings" of our 1S and 2S overcalls? To what extent does the answer depend on the extent to which partner might be aware of our reasoning processes and able to predict our choice? Can the meaning of something depend on the degree of someone's perception of that meaning? Deep philosophical questions indeed. So where do we draw the line? The answer has practical consequences, so, when we leave the realm of theory and philosophy, we make our choice based on our evaluation of those consequences. But there are consequences and there are consequences. Where we might like the line for, say, questions of what may be regulated might be rather far from where we might like the line for, say, questions of what must be disclosed. Having different lines for different purposes is bad theory and philosophy, but might solve some problems in practice. 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 Apr 8 09:31:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g37NVKc25186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:31:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g37NVFH25182 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:31:15 +1000 (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 g37NKGn22899 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 16:20:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002101c1de8a$bcb64700$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200204052246.RAA08355@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001e01c1dd97$8a4bace0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <005701c1de1e$2dcd50e0$163be150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 16:19:47 -0700 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" > > > > > In last week's Pacific Southwest Regional, a strong pair > > playing against Bill Bartley and me in a knockout session > > were playing light overcalls (noted on the CC). Sure enough, > > one of them overcalled 1S with S-Q108xx H-xxx D-AJx C-xx, > > pretty light. This got whacked for -300, while their > > teammates were in a hopeless 3NT with our cards. > > Someone remarked later that it was pretty dumb to play > > such light overcalls against penalty doublers, but the > > ACBL says they could not have altered their overcalling > > policy after learning we play penalty doubles. Of course > > they could tighten up a bit, but not to the extent that > > the CC no longer reflects their overcalling practices. You > > have to play what is on your card, and you can't change > > your card after the start of a session for reasons like this. > > > +=+ I would presume, however, that no-one would seek to > force a player to actually make an overcall if his judgement > tells him that the risk outweighs the advantages? Any such > regulation would be a regulation of 'style and judgement', > would it not? (40E1). Style and judgment variations cannot be restricted, true, but when a variation in actual range goes outside strength boundaries disclosed (or implied by an adjective) on the CC, and partner knows about it (from experience, say), then a pair would not be playing what the CC says they are playing, which is of course not allowed. Overcalling strength is disclosed on ACBL CC in the following way: One line says "1 level_____to_____ HCP (usually)", and the next line has two boxes, one labeled "often 4 cards" and the other "very light style" Suppose a pair hasn't checked either box, but has "6 to 14" as a HCP range. They might avoid the weaker part of that range against penalty doublers, which would be just common sense, a matter of judgment. I don't think it's sportsmanlike to do that, but the variance would never be penalized. They might also over-use the weaker part of that range against weak opposition, no problem. Moreover, they can move a bit outside the stated range, based on style and judgment, as long as partner doesn't allow for it (as with psychs). But suppose "often four cards" is checked and they decide not to overcall with a four-card suit against penalty doublers. LHO will look at the CC and perhaps make a close double based on the checked box, which is now a false disclosure. That's not okay. This is not style and judgment, but a change of system. Or suppose "very light style" is checked and that style is not used against penalty doublers. Same thing, false disclosure. If the "very light style" is checked and the HCP range starts with a number lower than 6, as it surely would, a Pre-Alert is required before hands are removed from the board and every overcall has to be Alerted. Not employing this pre-Alerted agreement could surely not be classified as merely a "style and judgment" decision. > The example above is considerably stronger than the > lower limit for the kind of overcalls that my glory days > partnerships used - with disclosed rescue mechanisms, > of course, and respect for opponents. Anyone using such > methods must have regard to occasion, to judgement and > to 'the better part of valour'. That approach to overcalls is now again popular, even at high levels. At the Houston NABC a top player, vulnerable, partner yet to speak, overcalled my 1C with Jxxxxx diamonds and Qxx clubs, no HCP in the majors. When I remarked about this to another opponent, he said "That's more than I require," and showed me his CC. For HCP range he had written "YES", whatever that is supposed to mean. Neither opponent pre-Alerted this practice, which is required unless the occurrence is rare. It might seem that this overcalling approach would lead to inaccurate partnership bidding, but those using it rely on the opponents' calls to help them gauge the partnership's assets. This leaves them vulnerable to psychic bids, which for some reason are now out of fashion hereabouts. In Houston I opened 1D with Jxxxx diamonds and nothing else, first seat, against a pair who had annoyed me on the first board. I was lucky to catch wife Alice with length and some strength in the minors, prompting her to jump all over the place. She let them play 5S, however, and declarer had zero losers. I must do this more often, it is so satisfying. 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 Apr 8 09:41:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g37NfLS25203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:41:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g37NfGH25199 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 09:41:16 +1000 (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 g37NUIn26263 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 16:30:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003001c1de8c$234b2700$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <002801c1d672$7a28e200$1d00e150@pacific> <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> <5.1.0.14.0.20020407180455.026fe340@mail.fscv.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 16:28:26 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:01 PM 3/28/02 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: 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. > 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 might have added that the ACBL refuses to follow the WBF constitution/by-laws, to which it is signatory, by insisting that the WBFLC's interpretations of the Laws are not binding on the ACBL. 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 Apr 8 16:23:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g386Mls25437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:22:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail13.svr.pol.co.uk (mail13.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g386MbH25429 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:22:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-248.engineer-fish.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.7.248] helo=4nrw70j) by mail13.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16uSNM-0005vk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 07:11:37 +0100 Message-ID: <000801c1df28$de8db7c0$f807893e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <002801c1d672$7a28e200$1d00e150@pacific> <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> <5.1.0.14.0.20020407180455.026fe340@mail.fscv.net> <003001c1de8c$234b2700$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 15:30:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Eric might have added that the ACBL refuses to follow the WBF > constitution/by-laws, to which it is signatory, by insisting that the > WBFLC's interpretations of the Laws are not binding on the ACBL. > +=+ Section 2, WBFLC Minute of Jan 11th, 2000. My view is that the WBF is well advised to work constructively for harmonisation, and is gradually succeeding. I do not think that precipitate moves aiming to impose conformity would do anything to further this cause. The colleagues from the ACBL that we work with are, in my estimation, sincere people with genuine concern for the game; we would be doing the game a great disservice if we were to pull the rug from under them by adopting a confrontational style in committee. The subject is one in which we have a responsibility as a committee to support the lead given by the Executive. As for the views hostile to the ACBL that I read on blml, there is no evidence that they are the majority views of the ACBL membership and I tend to feel the matter is a domestic problem for the ACBL in which my opinions are irrelevant (and would be gratuitous - and ill-informed - if offered 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 Mon Apr 8 16:23:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g386MuE25438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:22:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail13.svr.pol.co.uk (mail13.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g386MbH25430 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:22:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from modem-248.engineer-fish.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.7.248] helo=4nrw70j) by mail13.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16uSNO-0005vk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 07:11:38 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c1df28$df7112e0$f807893e@4nrw70j> From: "grandeval" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200204052246.RAA08355@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001e01c1dd97$8a4bace0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <005701c1de1e$2dcd50e0$163be150@dodona> <002101c1de8a$bcb64700$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 15:35:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? > > Overcalling strength is disclosed on ACBL CC in the following way: One > line says "1 level_____to_____ HCP (usually)", and the next line has two > boxes, one labeled "often 4 cards" and the other "very light style" > > > > The example above is considerably stronger than the > > lower limit for the kind of overcalls that my glory days > > partnerships used - with disclosed rescue mechanisms, > > of course, and respect for opponents. Anyone using such > > methods must have regard to occasion, to judgement and > > to 'the better part of valour'. > > That approach to overcalls is now again popular, even at high levels. > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > +=+ 0 - 13 (14) HCP, often 4 cards, controlled responses ? i.e. unless pre-empting a simple response would imply a min of 11 HCP, non-forcing. Responder's cue 21+. The overcall is not lead directing. If made on a suit that it would be unwise to play doubled there will either be a second suit or tolerance for both the unbid suits; redouble is for rescue. How would this go down in the ACBL these days? ~ 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 Apr 8 16:30:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g386UdK25456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:30:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g386UYH25452 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:30:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.48.36] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16uSUh-00079H-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 07:19:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000e01c1dec5$765fd4c0$2430e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <002801c1d672$7a28e200$1d00e150@pacific> <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> <5.1.0.14.0.20020407180455.026fe340@mail.fscv.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 07:19:23 +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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 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. +=+ I am not sure the WBF sees either of these things. My view is that the responsibility of the WBF is that of the custodian of the game. +=+ ~ 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 Apr 8 16:40:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g386ecT25469 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:40:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g386eXH25465 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 16:40:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.54.191] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16uSeM-0007ap-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 07:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: <001401c1dec6$db8c9940$2430e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020407173210.00ba2470@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 07:28:51 +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: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? > > > >At Table 1, the opponents are playing Precision, and > >you decide to bid 1S. At Table 2, they are playing a > >relay system, and you know (or find out) that 1S won't > >kill their relays but 2S will. So you take a bit more risk > >and bid 2S. > +=+ Can you not set out a single system which includes specific defences to specific opening methods? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 8 18:10:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3889bQ25511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:09:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3889VH25507 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 18:09:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.227]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU8006FQOT9FI@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 10:58:22 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 11:00:07 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <001a01c1dedb$c8e772a0$e34f003e@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_5l69LcGM/6Hs0JGfubPLfg)" 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_5l69LcGM/6Hs0JGfubPLfg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thanks to Ann Jones ,Sven Pran, Michael Schmahl and Eric Landau FOR their promp help in my 'trimming' problem. Israel --Boundary_(ID_5l69LcGM/6Hs0JGfubPLfg) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Thanks to Ann Jones ,Sven Pran, Michael Schmahl and Eric Landau FOR their promp help in my 'trimming' problem.
Israel 
--Boundary_(ID_5l69LcGM/6Hs0JGfubPLfg)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 8 19:34:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g389YAl25567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:34:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g389Y4H25563 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:34:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-222-238-209.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.222.238.209]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g389Musp012851 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 05:23:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 05:22:57 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020407173210.00ba2470@pop.starpower.net> <001401c1dec6$db8c9940$2430e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001401c1dec6$db8c9940$2430e150@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 Mon, 8 Apr 2002 07:28:51 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"The better part of valour is discretion; in >the which better part, I have saved my life." > ~ 'Henry IV, Pt 1" >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:23 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? > > >> > >> >At Table 1, the opponents are playing Precision, and >> >you decide to bid 1S. At Table 2, they are playing a >> >relay system, and you know (or find out) that 1S won't >> >kill their relays but 2S will. So you take a bit more risk >> >and bid 2S. >> >+=+ Can you not set out a single system which includes >specific defences to specific opening methods? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Certainly not if your NCBO is one of those which restricts you to using only the standard convention card for disclosure, for space is far too valuable to note this sort of detail. Some may recall that when this subject last surfaced, I described how my partner and I had used a photocopier to try to reduce the size of our writing in order to provide the fullest possible disclosure of our system on an EBU card. DWS was of the opinion that the card was probably illegal. So much for trying to comply with full disclosure. So there's your answer, Grattan - or do you really believe that players are going to drop parts of their own system in order to be able to fully describe their defences to their opponents system? I realise that this answer is not applicable to NCBOs which allow the use of supplementary sheets to describe your system, but that's when the lack of standardisation comes back to bite you. If the WBF/WBFLC is going to allow NCBOs the amount of freedom that it currently does, then I think the WBF/WBFLC has a responsibility to ensure that all of its decisions are compatible with the individual regulations of ALL the NCBOs, because I cannot think of a better way to persuade players that bridge administrators in general are a bunch of idiots whom its best to ignore than to have the WBF and their NCBO place incompatible requirements upon them. To say that it is up to the NCBOs to make sure that their decisions are compatible with WBF/WBFLC decisions is a non-answer, for it's obvious from the postings on this list that some NCBOs do not share that view. You've made it clear to us that the WBF/WBFLC is not of a mind to enforce compliance, so it would seem that the only option left is that the WBF/WBFLC has to comply with the NCBOs, unless players *are* to be given mutually incompatible instructions. 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 Mon Apr 8 23:29:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g38DSQp25857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 23:28:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g38DSJH25853 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 23:28:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.77.178]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU900J5J3KO66@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 16:17:14 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 16:18:24 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] bridge is only a game ,but... To: Hirsch Davis , Ed Reppert , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum , ayala hiler , Anne Jones Message-id: <000c01c1df08$51ddb020$b24d003e@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_QCnR+/STovdy6axcLDItjg)" 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_QCnR+/STovdy6axcLDItjg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Bridge is only a game, but duplicate bridge- pairs is the *only* game [for better or worse] that a pair of novices can give a pair of World Champions 2 'cold bottoms' -- you promise and deliver "if you play bridge -you don't *have to to be lonely. [very important to 'elderly people' -Ed]. And maybe -the ultimate Years ago a member of our club *ultimately ill was in a hostel with a life expentancy of 2-3 weeks, lived about 3 months ,and *every afternoon of these months was brought to our duplicate club and for 3+ hours *was alive* Won't you do *anything you can that such clubs can exist?? Best regards to you all Israel Erdenbaum Tel-Aviv --Boundary_(ID_QCnR+/STovdy6axcLDItjg) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Bridge is only a game, but duplicate bridge- pairs is the *only* game  [for better or worse]  that a pair of novices can give a pair of World Champions 2 'cold bottoms'  -- you promise and deliver "if you play bridge -you don't *have to to be lonely. [very important to 'elderly people' -Ed].
 
And maybe -the ultimate Years ago a member of our club *ultimately  ill was in a hostel with a life expentancy of 2-3 weeks,
lived about 3 months ,and *every afternoon of these months was brought to our duplicate club and for 3+ hours *was alive*
Won't you do *anything you can that such clubs can exist??
Best regards to you all
Israel Erdenbaum    Tel-Aviv 
--Boundary_(ID_QCnR+/STovdy6axcLDItjg)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 9 01:30:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g38FThv26019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 01:29:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g38FTaH26015 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 01:29:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.79.111]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU900JCO96PWY@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:18:26 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 18:20:07 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] Re: Mental lapses To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001501c1df19$4033d640$6f4f003e@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: <003801c1dcf7$3e3e7d00$0300a8c0@abc> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Kimel" To: "Discuss" Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:11 AM Subject: Mental lapses > What is your worst, most eggregious mental lapse? > > I just had a terrible one today. I am declaring 4SXX. I've never > declared a redoubled contract, so I was a bit nervous. I was five-five > in the majors. The dummy comes down. It's a lovely hand, with three > spades and four hearts. I note that it would have even been better if > we had been playing in hearts. The defense takes the first trick. They > then play a heart. How strange and nice of them, I think to myself, > that they are pulling TRUMP. I win the heart and play the ace of > hearts. What?! The computer says they won the trick! Arrrgggghhh, as > the moment of revelation hits. If only I could trade in this brain of > mine ... > > If I had made that contract, we would have been rolling in the IMPs. > Now I'm wondering if my partner will ever play with me again. ;-) > > Al > > "Whist led to bridge-whist, which led to auction bridge, which led to > contract bridge, which led to murder, divorce, suicide, mayhem and other > social evils." --Jack Olsen > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 9 03:24:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g38HNWS26208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 03:23:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from phobos.idirect.com (phobos.idirect.com [207.136.80.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g38HNQH26204 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 03:23:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from default (on-tor-blr-a58-04-159.look.ca [216.154.16.159]) by phobos.idirect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA64909; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:12:22 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001101c1df20$8c671d40$9f109ad8@default> Reply-To: "Andrzej Kolinski" From: "Andrzej Kolinski" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" , References: <003801c1dcf7$3e3e7d00$0300a8c0@abc> <001501c1df19$4033d640$6f4f003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Mental lapses Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:10:19 -0400 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel, Would it be too much to ask you not to use special fonts in your correspondence? Every time I open your e-mail, a special screen comes up telling me that I do not have these fonts. Thank you _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Andrzej Kolinski andrzejk@idirect.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Israel Erdnbaum To: Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:20 PM Subject: [BLML] Re: Mental lapses > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Al Kimel" > To: "Discuss" > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:11 AM > Subject: Mental lapses > > > > What is your worst, most eggregious mental lapse? > > > > I just had a terrible one today. I am declaring 4SXX. I've never > > declared a redoubled contract, so I was a bit nervous. I was five-five > > in the majors. The dummy comes down. It's a lovely hand, with three > > spades and four hearts. I note that it would have even been better if > > we had been playing in hearts. The defense takes the first trick. They > > then play a heart. How strange and nice of them, I think to myself, > > that they are pulling TRUMP. I win the heart and play the ace of > > hearts. What?! The computer says they won the trick! Arrrgggghhh, as > > the moment of revelation hits. If only I could trade in this brain of > > mine ... > > > > If I had made that contract, we would have been rolling in the IMPs. > > Now I'm wondering if my partner will ever play with me again. ;-) > > > > Al > > > > "Whist led to bridge-whist, which led to auction bridge, which led to > > contract bridge, which led to murder, divorce, suicide, mayhem and other > > social evils." --Jack Olsen > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 9 05:06:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g38J5lU26251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 05:05:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx04.nexgo.de (mx04.nexgo.de [151.189.8.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g38J5eH26247 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 05:05:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from rabbit (dialin-212-144-149-245.arcor-ip.net [212.144.149.245]) by mx04.nexgo.de (Postfix) with SMTP id 16DB137DB6 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:54:24 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <00d701c1df2f$a5141be0$f59590d4@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] UI No.313 Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 20:59:58 +0200 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: > St John's Wood rubber Bridge Club in the inter club KO's last 32. > > game all, imps, 4 card major, weak NT, almost no conventions. > > AJ98xx > Axxx > A > xx > > 1S P 2C P > 2H P 3D P (4sf! wahey, I get to use the alert card) > 3S P 4H P totally out of tempo 4H bid. But guarantees a 4-card fit > ? and a good hand (ie 4H is safe facing one of my openers) > > Is pass a LA to 4S/5D? (fwiw I prefer 5D to 4S but that's by the by) Pass definitely is an LA for me. While the aces are nice, and you could be a little bit weaker, the hand does not fit particularly good with partner's clubs. The weak H suit also suggests staying low. Furthermore, while you are stronger than a minimum opener, you also are much weaker than a maximum 6-4. I think that you would not jump-shift into 3H on AJ98xx,AKxx,A,xx, right? Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 9 05:30:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g38JUca26271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 05:30:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g38JUXH26267 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 05:30:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.83.23]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU9009E7KC8JE@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 08 Apr 2002 22:19:23 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 22:21:07 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Mental lapses To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Andrzej Kolinski Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001801c1df3a$eb5e2f40$1753003e@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: <003801c1dcf7$3e3e7d00$0300a8c0@abc> <001501c1df19$4033d640$6f4f003e@erdnbaum> <001101c1df20$8c671d40$9f109ad8@default> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Andrzej, I"d like to oblige,but I am ashamed to say that I don't even know what are 'special fonts' so if you or anyone else will tell me what to do or not to do, I"ll be glad to act accordingly. Thanks for pointing it out, and best regards Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrzej Kolinski" To: "Israel Erdnbaum" ; Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 7:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Mental lapses > Israel, > > Would it be too much to ask you not to use special fonts in your > correspondence? Every time I open your e-mail, a special screen comes up > telling me that I do not have these fonts. > > > Thank you > > > _/_/ _/ _/ > _/ _/ _/ _/ > _/_/_/_/ _/_/ > _/ _/ _/ _/ > > Andrzej Kolinski > andrzejk@idirect.com > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Israel Erdnbaum > To: > Cc: Israel Erdenbaum > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 12:20 PM > Subject: [BLML] Re: Mental lapses > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Al Kimel" > > To: "Discuss" > > Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:11 AM > > Subject: Mental lapses > > > > > > > What is your worst, most eggregious mental lapse? > > > > > > I just had a terrible one today. I am declaring 4SXX. I've never > > > declared a redoubled contract, so I was a bit nervous. I was five-five > > > in the majors. The dummy comes down. It's a lovely hand, with three > > > spades and four hearts. I note that it would have even been better if > > > we had been playing in hearts. The defense takes the first trick. They > > > then play a heart. How strange and nice of them, I think to myself, > > > that they are pulling TRUMP. I win the heart and play the ace of > > > hearts. What?! The computer says they won the trick! Arrrgggghhh, as > > > the moment of revelation hits. If only I could trade in this brain of > > > mine ... > > > > > > If I had made that contract, we would have been rolling in the IMPs. > > > Now I'm wondering if my partner will ever play with me again. ;-) > > > > > > Al > > > > > > "Whist led to bridge-whist, which led to auction bridge, which led to > > > contract bridge, which led to murder, divorce, suicide, mayhem and other > > > social evils." --Jack Olsen > > > > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 9 07:38:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g38LbIe26330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:37:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g38LbCH26326 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 07:37:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from erdnbaum ([62.0.76.8]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GU900ACDQ7B3A@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:26:01 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 00:27:46 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] fonts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Andrzej Kolinski Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <001901c1df4c$9cb990c0$084c003e@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_L7HCXo1cO6JqhstTxwlyww)" 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_L7HCXo1cO6JqhstTxwlyww) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Andrzej Ann Jones advised me to change from 'HTML" to 'plain text' I hope this will solve your problem,but I also hope it won't cause problems with other people.Please let me know whether it's O.K now for you. Best regards Israel --Boundary_(ID_L7HCXo1cO6JqhstTxwlyww) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Andrzej
Ann Jones advised me to change from 'HTML" to 'plain text' I hope this will solve your problem,but I also hope it won't cause problems with other people.Please let me know whether it's O.K now for you.
Best regards
Israel
--Boundary_(ID_L7HCXo1cO6JqhstTxwlyww)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 9 22:52:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g39Cp6326946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 22:51:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g39CoxH26942 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 22:51:00 +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 g380I9x06143 for ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 01:18:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 00:58:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] UI No.313 References: <00d701c1df2f$a5141be0$f59590d4@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <00d701c1df2f$a5141be0$f59590d4@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00d701c1df2f$a5141be0$f59590d4@rabbit>, Thomas Dehn writes >"John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >> St John's Wood rubber Bridge Club in the inter club KO's last 32. >> >> game all, imps, 4 card major, weak NT, almost no conventions. >> >> AJ98xx >> Axxx >> A >> xx >> >> 1S P 2C P >> 2H P 3D P (4sf! wahey, I get to use the alert card) >> 3S P 4H P totally out of tempo 4H bid. But guarantees a 4-card fit >> ? and a good hand (ie 4H is safe facing one of my openers) >> >> Is pass a LA to 4S/5D? (fwiw I prefer 5D to 4S but that's by the by) > >Pass definitely is an LA for me. >While the aces are nice, and you could be a >little bit weaker, the hand does not fit >particularly good with partner's clubs. >The weak H suit also suggests staying low. > >Furthermore, while you are stronger than >a minimum opener, you also are much weaker >than a maximum 6-4. I think that >you would not jump-shift into 3H on >AJ98xx,AKxx,A,xx, right? > I'd probably have raised 3D to 4D with this hand. Even though I've no idea yet where partner is going it is a HUGE hand. > >Thomas > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 10 06:24:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g39KNCw27154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 06:23:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g39KN4H27150 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 06:23:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from penguin.ripe.net (penguin.ripe.net [193.0.1.232]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g39KBwV21595 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 22:11:58 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g39KBvU12741 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 22:11:58 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 22:11:57 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] This must be simple... Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts: West North East South -- 3 S Pass Pass 4 H Director please! The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?" South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I really wanted to bid 4S". Now what? And why? And which Law do you apply? Henk ps. In case you wondered, the TD sees Axx/xx/AQxx/Axxx. And no, the TD could not avoid seeing the cards. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 10 11:13:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3A1CYY27281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:12:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com (orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com [66.75.160.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3A1CRH27277 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 11:12:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from irv (cpe-66-74-18-75.dc.rr.com [66.74.18.75]) by orngca-mls03.socal.rr.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.3) with SMTP id g3A11OS14473 for ; Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:01:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000a01c1e02c$2c3d9220$6501a8c0@irv> From: "Irv Kostal" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020407173210.00ba2470@pop.starpower.net> <001401c1dec6$db8c9940$2430e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 18:08:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 might add that I can recall getting an adverse ruling, after having provided an appropriate explanation on a supplementary card that I provided to the opponent, only to have him say, "I don't have to read that stuff!" That guy would rather win in committee than at the table. Irv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 2:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? > On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 07:28:51 +0100, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > >Grattan Endicott >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >"The better part of valour is discretion; in > >the which better part, I have saved my life." > > ~ 'Henry IV, Pt 1" > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Eric Landau" > >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > >Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 11:23 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? > > > > > >> > > >> >At Table 1, the opponents are playing Precision, and > >> >you decide to bid 1S. At Table 2, they are playing a > >> >relay system, and you know (or find out) that 1S won't > >> >kill their relays but 2S will. So you take a bit more risk > >> >and bid 2S. > >> > >+=+ Can you not set out a single system which includes > >specific defences to specific opening methods? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Certainly not if your NCBO is one of those which restricts you to > using only the standard convention card for disclosure, for space > is far too valuable to note this sort of detail. > > Some may recall that when this subject last surfaced, I described > how my partner and I had used a photocopier to try to reduce the > size of our writing in order to provide the fullest possible > disclosure of our system on an EBU card. DWS was of the opinion > that the card was probably illegal. So much for trying to comply > with full disclosure. > > So there's your answer, Grattan - or do you really believe that > players are going to drop parts of their own system in order to > be able to fully describe their defences to their opponents > system? > > I realise that this answer is not applicable to NCBOs which allow > the use of supplementary sheets to describe your system, but > that's when the lack of standardisation comes back to bite you. > If the WBF/WBFLC is going to allow NCBOs the amount of freedom > that it currently does, then I think the WBF/WBFLC has a > responsibility to ensure that all of its decisions are compatible > with the individual regulations of ALL the NCBOs, because I > cannot think of a better way to persuade players that bridge > administrators in general are a bunch of idiots whom its best to > ignore than to have the WBF and their NCBO place incompatible > requirements upon them. > > To say that it is up to the NCBOs to make sure that their > decisions are compatible with WBF/WBFLC decisions is a > non-answer, for it's obvious from the postings on this list that > some NCBOs do not share that view. You've made it clear to us > that the WBF/WBFLC is not of a mind to enforce compliance, so it > would seem that the only option left is that the WBF/WBFLC has to > comply with the NCBOs, unless players *are* to be given mutually > incompatible instructions. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 11 01:43:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3AFeKp27813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:40:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3AFeDH27809 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 01:40:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.75.43]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUC009BFZ0EIB@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:29:04 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 18:30:42 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] trial To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003201c1e0ad$0fe7d460$2b4b003e@mycomputer> 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_ULUp1ZHeYIvFNoqazPwieA)" 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_ULUp1ZHeYIvFNoqazPwieA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable =F0=F1=E9=E5=EF =EE=F2=F0=E9=EF =EE=E5=F7 --Boundary_(ID_ULUp1ZHeYIvFNoqazPwieA) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
=F0=F1=E9=E5=EF = =EE=F2=F0=E9=EF
=EE=E5=F7
--Boundary_(ID_ULUp1ZHeYIvFNoqazPwieA)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 11 12:07:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3B263S28492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:06:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3B25uH28488 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:05:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.75]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUD00L0ERYVY9@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 04:54:41 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 04:56:12 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] fonts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000c01c1e104$77b5b380$4b5f003e@mycomputer> 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_b2PC0uTiOdtGd6aGnpc+HQ)" 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_b2PC0uTiOdtGd6aGnpc+HQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT trying out fonts --Boundary_(ID_b2PC0uTiOdtGd6aGnpc+HQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
trying out fonts
--Boundary_(ID_b2PC0uTiOdtGd6aGnpc+HQ)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 11 14:29:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3B4SfJ28551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:28:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3B4OuH28547 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:24:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA14104; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:26:49 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:11:29 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: "bthorp::.gov.au":"pcug.org.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:12:42 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 11/04/2002 02:11:24 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 g3B4OvH28548 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A friend attended a seminar given by top player R. Below are some quotes from my friend's debrief to me: >R has some noteworthy views on alerting. >I asked him a coupla questions during his >presentation and chatted afterwards to him >on the topic and the following examples >emerged. > >Eg1   1D P 1S 2C >       P         - shows 0-2 Spades, but R > doesn't alert. > >Eg2   1C P 1D 1S >      P         - denies four H's. Not > alerted. > >Eg3   P P 1S    - R and his partners > commonly psyche here, > but they don't alert. > >Eg4  1D X 1S    - ditto to eg3 > >R said that against top players he and/or his >partners psyche about once every other session, >but they don't alert (or presumably pre-alert). > >R said he isn't an expert on the topic of >alerting and implied that R leaves such worries >to the Directors. Personally, R doesn't alert in >the above situations as both the implications of >support doubles and the standard psyche >situations are widely known and "otherwise R >would be alerting everything." > >Presumably R could not continue such non-alert >behaviour for long if unacceptable, which suggests >it's me [my friend] that's 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 Thu Apr 11 16:15:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3B6Ef028608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:14:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3B6EaH28604 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:14:36 +1000 (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 g3B63Vo08612 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003501c1e11e$907c0580$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:03:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: A friend attended a seminar given by top player R. Below are some quotes from my friend's debrief to me: >R has some noteworthy views on alerting. >I asked him a coupla questions during his >presentation and chatted afterwards to him >on the topic and the following examples >emerged. > >Eg1 1D P 1S 2C > P - shows 0-2 Spades, but R > doesn't alert. Not Alertable in ACBL-land. Here's what Gary Blaiss wrote me recently concerning passes and raises by support doublers: >***The pass and raise are not Alertable, however, the declarer is encouraged (in the 2nd paragraph of the Alert Chart) to offer to explain the auction whenever along with available inferences. [sic] ****** >Eg2 1C P 1D 1S > P - denies four H's. Not > alerted. Surely Alertable, an unusual treatment. > >Eg3 P P 1S - R and his partners > commonly psyche here, > but they don't alert. > >Eg4 1D X 1S - ditto to eg3 No comment on the last two. 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 Apr 11 16:34:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3B6Xlc28621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:33:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.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 g3B6XgH28617 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:33:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.73.66] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16vXyO-000PkR-00; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 07:22:20 +0100 Message-ID: <000d01c1e121$64882960$4249e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Irv Kostal" , "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020407173210.00ba2470@pop.starpower.net> <001401c1dec6$db8c9940$2430e150@dodona> <000a01c1e02c$2c3d9220$6501a8c0@irv> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 08:02:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott From: "Brian Meadows" > To: > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 2:22 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? > ? > > > > I realise that this answer is not applicable to NCBOs which > > allow > > the use of supplementary sheets to describe your system, but > > that's when the lack of standardisation comes back to bite you. > > If the WBF/WBFLC is going to allow NCBOs the amount of freedom > > that it currently does, then I think the WBF/WBFLC has a > > responsibility to ensure that all of its decisions are > > compatible with the individual regulations of ALL the NCBOs, > > Brian. > > +=+ I must not say more than that some such thought has appeared in the material for the General Review of the laws. ~ 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 Apr 11 20:51:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BApBn28851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 20:51:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3BAp4H28846 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 20:51:05 +1000 (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 16vbzc-000Imi-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:39:58 +0100 Message-ID: <$st+q8RcfWt8EwkS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:39:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts: > > West North East South > -- 3 S Pass Pass > 4 H Director please! > >The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?" > >South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I >really wanted to bid 4S". > >Now what? And why? And which Law do you apply? I ask what she intended to call as she reached for her bidding box. If the answer is 4S then I let her bid 4S. As for why, she presumably thinks pd opened, but that is no concern of the TD's. >ps. In case you wondered, the TD sees Axx/xx/AQxx/Axxx. And no, the TD >could not avoid seeing the cards. He should not look. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 11 21:04:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BB4Gi28871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:04:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BB4AH28867 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:04:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3BAr0u32500; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:53:00 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3BAr0317393; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:53:00 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:53:00 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... In-Reply-To: <$st+q8RcfWt8EwkS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > > > >North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts: > > > > West North East South > > -- 3 S Pass Pass > > 4 H Director please! > > > >The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?" > > > >South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I > >really wanted to bid 4S". > > > >Now what? And why? And which Law do you apply? > > I ask what she intended to call as she reached for her bidding box. > If the answer is 4S then I let her bid 4S. Even though 4S is in an entirely different section of the bidding box and it is unlikely that she mispulled. Anyway, south now replies "I just realized that partner has 7 tricks, 7+3 equals 10, so I want to play 4S". > > As for why, she presumably thinks pd opened, but that is no concern of > the TD's. > > >ps. In case you wondered, the TD sees Axx/xx/AQxx/Axxx. And no, the TD > >could not avoid seeing the cards. > > He should not look. The TD in question knows, but he just couldn't avoid seeing the cards. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 11 21:26:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BBPlV28917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:25:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BBPgH28913 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:25:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from annescomputer ([62.255.10.228]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020411111435.RYCH7757.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@annescomputer> for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:14:35 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c1e14a$115b2520$e40aff3e@annescomputer> Reply-To: "Anne Jones" From: "Anne Jones" To: "blml" References: <$st+q8RcfWt8EwkS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:14:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Her partner did open (3S) and her LHO has called. Surely this is a Law 25A if the error was inadvertent, and too late for Law 25B if it was not ?? Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > > > >North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts: > > > > West North East South > > -- 3 S Pass Pass > > 4 H Director please! > > > >The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?" > > > >South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I > >really wanted to bid 4S". > > > >Now what? And why? And which Law do you apply? > > I ask what she intended to call as she reached for her bidding box. > If the answer is 4S then I let her bid 4S. > > As for why, she presumably thinks pd opened, but that is no concern of > the TD's. > > >ps. In case you wondered, the TD sees Axx/xx/AQxx/Axxx. And no, the TD > >could not avoid seeing the cards. > > He should not look. > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 11 23:33:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BDXL529194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:33:21 +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 g3BDXDH29190 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:33:15 +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 g3BDM8x14666 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:22:08 +0100 Message-ID: <6FsfdzB22Yt8Ewm7@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:20:54 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... References: <$st+q8RcfWt8EwkS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >> > >> >North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts: >> > >> > West North East South >> > -- 3 S Pass Pass >> > 4 H Director please! >> > >> >The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?" >> > >> >South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I >> >really wanted to bid 4S". >> > >> >Now what? And why? And which Law do you apply? >> >> I ask what she intended to call as she reached for her bidding box. >> If the answer is 4S then I let her bid 4S. > >Even though 4S is in an entirely different section of the bidding box and >it is unlikely that she mispulled. > >Anyway, south now replies "I just realized that partner has 7 tricks, 7+3 >equals 10, so I want to play 4S". > too late for 25B; UI to North. Tell her to bid 4S when it gets back to her :) > >> >> As for why, she presumably thinks pd opened, but that is no concern of >> the TD's. >> >> >ps. In case you wondered, the TD sees Axx/xx/AQxx/Axxx. And no, the TD >> >could not avoid seeing the cards. >> >> He should not look. > >The TD in question knows, but he just couldn't avoid seeing the cards. > >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/ -- 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 Apr 12 01:36:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BFZS529475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:35:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f185.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.185]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BFZMH29471 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:35:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 08:24:13 -0700 Received: from 24.28.122.53 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:24:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.28.122.53] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 10:24:13 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2002 15:24:13.0264 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF6C1500:01C1E16C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk



>From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)"
>To: Bridge Laws Mailing List
>Subject: [BLML] This must be simple...
>Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 22:11:57 +0200 (CEST)
>
>
>North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts:
>
> West North East South
> -- 3 S Pass Pass
> 4 H Director please!
>
>The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?"
>
>South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I
>really wanted to bid 4S".
>
>Now what? And why? And which Law do you apply?

 

It seems to me that this player needed to do some thinking before changing his call.  What drives me to such conclusion?  This player needed some information before thinking- being he needed to know what the consequences this proposed change will have and that information comes from the TD.  Since he did not correct his call at the time he made it, nor was stopped from attempting to correct, he will have done thinking before changing his call- or before not changing his call.  I suggest that the relevant law to this point is L73B1;  L26, L25B, and/or L16 may be a factor depending on the future.

 

regards

roger pewick

>Henk

>
>
>ps. In case you wondered, the TD sees Axx/xx/AQxx/Axxx. And no, the TD
>could not avoid seeing the cards.

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here
-- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 02:53:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BGqfT29602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:52:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BGqZH29598 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:52:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id SAA11326; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:38:50 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id SAA06685; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:41:27 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020411184503.00a6a100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:46:50 +0200 To: "Roger Pewick" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... 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 10:24 11/04/2002 -0500, Roger Pewick wrote: >It seems to me that this player needed to do some thinking before changing >his call. What drives me to such conclusion? This player needed some >information before thinking- being he needed to know what the consequences >this proposed change will have and that information comes from the >TD. Since he did not correct his call at the time he made it, nor was >stopped from attempting to correct, he will have done thinking before >changing his call- or before not changing his call. I suggest that the >relevant law to this point is L73B1; L26, L25B, and/or L16 may be a >factor depending on the future. > AG : one possibility is that the player saw a 4S bid and passed, then LHO reopened with 4H, which made the player realize the opening was only 3S and made him wish he'd responded 4S. What law applies now? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:16:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHFR829722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BHFHH29703 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:17 +1000 (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 16vhzT-000KqM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:09 +0000 Message-ID: <4MY$yBUKHXt8Ew3G@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:21:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts References: <003501c1e11e$907c0580$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003501c1e11e$907c0580$2d2fd2cc@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 > >Richard Hills wrote: > >A friend attended a seminar given by top >player R. Below are some quotes from my >friend's debrief to me: > >>R has some noteworthy views on alerting. >>I asked him a coupla questions during his >>presentation and chatted afterwards to him >>on the topic and the following examples >>emerged. >> >>Eg1 1D P 1S 2C >> P - shows 0-2 Spades, but R >> doesn't alert. > >Not Alertable in ACBL-land. Here's what Gary Blaiss wrote me recently >concerning passes and raises by support doublers: > >>***The pass and raise are not Alertable, however, >the declarer is encouraged (in the 2nd paragraph of the Alert Chart) to >offer to explain the auction whenever along with available inferences. >[sic] >****** > >>Eg2 1C P 1D 1S >> P - denies four H's. Not >> alerted. > >Surely Alertable, an unusual treatment. Why is it surely alertable? Do you know the Australian alerting rules, Marv? Can I remind everyone: the basic rule for alerting is simple: You have to alert everything that your sponsoring organisation tells you to, and nothing else. For something to be alertable because it is an unusual treatment the SO must say that unusual treatments are alertable. Just because something is alertable in the ACBL that does not mean it is alertable in Australia. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:16:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHFiq29753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BHFJH29707 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:20 +1000 (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 16vhzU-000KqN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:29:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] misinformation References: <002301c1dbd6$952ca5a0$c21289ca@u4q5d0> In-Reply-To: <002301c1dbd6$952ca5a0$c21289ca@u4q5d0> 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 g3BHFMH29710 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk bert toar polii writes > W     N    E     S >                    1D (1) > Pass 3D(2) 3H Dbl > All Pass >   > (1) Precision at least 2 cards > (2) North to east Preemptive >      South to west Invitational >   > Result 3Hx - 3. > Director Ruling 3H - 3, NS appealled > AC decision score stand 3Hx-3. > 31         North > S/NS      75 >             5 >             A86542 >             A532 > Q1092                 J84 > 63                      KQ10987 > KQJ9                  10 > K64                   QJ10 >            AK63 >            AJ42 >            73 >            987 > > AC's desicion is based on reasoning that over INV 3D,  3H by east > is automatic. I don't agree. > Please comment. It is a bridge judgement. If an AC decides 3H is automatic then so be it. Of course, we do not know whether there really was MI: what did 3D actually mean in the system? If pre-emptive there is no MI. If a game try then there is MI. But the strange thing is the ruling. Assume there is MI and the 3D bid is a try. If East would bid 3H then 3H*-3 is obvious, as the AC decided. If East might not then the ruling should be 3D making some number of tricks. But there is no way a ruling can come up with 3H undoubled. It sounds to me as though the TD got confused. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:16:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHFpl29761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BHFLH29711 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:22 +1000 (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 16vhzU-000KqP-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:22:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... 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 g3BHFOH29716 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >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. While In fact I do not think this is what the UI suggests it is the only argument I have seen for rolling the contract back [sorry, Ed]. ------------------- Ed Reppert writes >On 3/20/02 at 3:40 PM, karel@esatclear.ie (Karel) wrote: >> 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. :-) We often refer to rolling it back. I think that it means an adjustment *or* a change of contract at the time and we have to decide which from the context. >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. Why? So long as you deal with all the steps, the order seems irrelevant to me. Suppose 7H goes one off, are you suggesting the TD has to decide whether there is UI, whether there are LAs to the chosen action, and whether the chosen action was suggested by the UI first, and only then say "but since 7H went off there is no damage"? ------------------- Hans-Olof Hallén writes >You have only 12 cards. How could there possibly be a problem? How true. But surely it is an interesting problem, and the fact that the original poster made a tiny mistake does not stop it being an interesting problem nor mean we should not discuss it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:16:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHFvN29763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BHFPH29723 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:26 +1000 (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 16vhza-000KqK-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:36:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 14 and 12 times 3 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 Gordon Bower writes >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. Certainly it is extremely generous to give a pair at fault A+! I am sure N/S at the last table should get A-. You will hardly persuade people to count the cards if you give them a bonus for not doing so. To be honest I would probably give E/W A- as well: how come West did not notice she was a card short before her partner opened? >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. If you are sure it happened before the second table then A/A seems fair enough. It does depend on your own recollection of course, unless your opponent corroborates. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:16:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHFus29762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BHFOH29720 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:25 +1000 (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 16vhza-000KqM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:39:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 14 and 12 times 3 References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020321131219.00a62ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002c01c1d11c$c83831e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <002c01c1d11c$c83831e0$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: "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. You find it reasonable that a player cannot count his cards before both his partner and RHO have called? Seems unlikely! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:16:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHFxn29764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BHFPH29724 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:26 +1000 (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 16vhzd-000KqN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:18 +0000 Message-ID: <0ycc9gVZTZt8EwVS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:51:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >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). ... and all the lost players. If you reduce the charm of the game, you reduce the number of players: the fact that poor pairs have their day is one of the things that keeps them playing. I play fairly regularly at Blundellsands BC with three ladies who are fair, but think of themselves of poorer than they are. Last Wednesday two of them got 72% together while I got 53% with the third, and my friend Ron who wins more than anyone else there got 47%. You think this "charm" should be taken away? You think we do not need this? You think they will forget this in a hurry? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:20:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHGB929769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:16:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BHFZH29741 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:36 +1000 (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 16vhzl-000KqO-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:40:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient 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 Kooijman, A. writes >Isn't the 6S bid that peculiar that partner most probably will remember the >agreement now? I have played that 2N - 4N - 6S shows a maximum with five spades all my life, so it does not sound at all peculiar to me. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:35:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHGE029770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:16:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BHFcH29751 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:40 +1000 (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 16vhzo-000KqN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:59:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Meanwhile, back at the ranch... References: <200204032229.RAA02469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004301c1dbaa$b8fa01c0$b3a1403e@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 John (MadDog) Probst writes >If one of the pairs is stationary then they're responsible. If not then >they both are IMO. That much is in the laws. cheers john Primarily, never forget primarily. You do not want a Law that absolves one pair even if they are completely thoughtless or stupid. Whenever I run anything with guide cards I always remind everyone that everyone is responsible for checking opponents and boards. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:41:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHGG129771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:16:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BHFcH29750 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:39 +1000 (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 16vhzo-000KqK-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:01:05 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Elderly people References: <007c01c1d769$35e013a0$5e4b003e@erdnbaum> <20020329181102-R01050000-53FBFF00-4340-11D6-B93E-C32D725BB307-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020329181102-R01050000-53FBFF00-4340-11D6-B93E-C32D725BB307-0904-0108@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 3/29/02 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. Oooooooooooooh that's old !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I won't be 55 for *months*!!!!!!!!!! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:50:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHG8P29765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:16:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BHFVH29737 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:32 +1000 (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 16vhze-000KqP-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:22 +0000 Message-ID: <+SzeFvVnaZt8Ew3U@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:59:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Part Question References: <001801c1d47c$e2d3f760$0100a8c0@ETM3> In-Reply-To: <001801c1d47c$e2d3f760$0100a8c0@ETM3> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Glen Ashton writes >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? Overcaller's remark is disgraceful, of course. Advancer asked a part question, which is all that is needed under ACBL regs so an answer is required. First I find out whether overcaller and advancer are contrite: if they are I adjust and also hit them with a 25% of a board penalty. If not I make the penalty 100% of a board. Once a part question [or a wrong question] is asked a TD has a problem - *except* in the ACBL which has a reg covering it. Good for the ACBL!!! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 03:56:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BHG8729768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:16:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BHFVH29736 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 03:15:31 +1000 (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 16vhzY-000KqO-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:04:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:14:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... References: <3c98ad66.3d60.0@esatclear.ie> <5.1.0.14.0.20020321125750.00a5e290@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020321125750.00a5e290@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 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 ? Why? It hardly matters what *west* thought his remark meant, and anyway it is just an unfortunate utterance. >2) to East : why were you sure partner couldn't have DK ? What has this to do with anything? How is this affected by the UI? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 04:20:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BIJmH29934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 04:19:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f229.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.229]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BIJgH29930 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 04:19:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:08:32 -0700 Received: from 24.28.122.53 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:08:32 GMT X-Originating-IP: [24.28.122.53] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 13:08:32 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2002 18:08:32.0924 (UTC) FILETIME=[E43CCDC0:01C1E183] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It turns out that I posted originally in html. I apologize. Here things are fixed. Go ahead and delete the earlier post. >From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >Subject: [BLML] This must be simple... >Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 22:11:57 +0200 (CEST) > > >North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts: > > West North East South > -- 3 S Pass Pass > 4 H Director please! > >The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?" > >South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I >really wanted to bid 4S". > >Now what? And why? And which Law do you apply? It seems to me that this player needed to do some thinking before changing his call. What drives me to such conclusion? This player needed some information before thinking- being he needed to know what the consequences this proposed change will have and that information comes from the TD. Since he did not correct his call at the time he made it, nor was stopped from attempting to correct, he will have done thinking before changing his call- or before not changing his call. I suggest that the relevant law to this point is L73B1; L26, L29, and/or L16 may be a factor depending on the future. regards roger pewick >Henk > > >ps. In case you wondered, the TD sees Axx/xx/AQxx/Axxx. And no, the TD >could not avoid seeing the cards. _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 05:16:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BJFuk29989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 05:15:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BJFoH29985 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 05:15:51 +1000 (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 g3BJ4iP29123 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001f01c1e18b$b32f2680$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020407173210.00ba2470@pop.starpower.net> <001401c1dec6$db8c9940$2430e150@dodona> <000a01c1e02c$2c3d9220$6501a8c0@irv> <000d01c1e121$64882960$4249e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:04:22 -0700 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: "Brian Meadows" > ? > > > > > > I realise that this answer is not applicable to NCBOs which > > > allow > > > the use of supplementary sheets to describe your system, but > > > that's when the lack of standardisation comes back to bite you. > > > If the WBF/WBFLC is going to allow NCBOs the amount of freedom > > > that it currently does, then I think the WBF/WBFLC has a > > > responsibility to ensure that all of its decisions are > > > compatible with the individual regulations of ALL the NCBOs, > > > Brian. > > > > +=+ I must not say more than that some such thought > has appeared in the material for the General Review > of the laws. ~ G ~ +=+ > The ACBL has recently reduced the frequency of Alerts (although the Alert Procedure remains quite complicated). It is time for the ACBL to change its "suggestion" that declarer (or dummy) disclose all special partnership understandings about their auction, including all derivable inferences, to a regulation that requires it. Another argument for this is the ACBL convention card, which (according to instructions for filling it out) provides merely a "compreshensive overview" of the partnership's system, not a detailed description. The Laws might well include something to this effect, while retaining the language of L40B and L40E1 that makes specification of other means of disclosure the responsibility of the SOs. 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 Apr 12 05:24:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BJOYe00006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 05:24:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BJOTH29998 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 05:24:30 +1000 (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 g3BJDOP02133 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:13:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <003e01c1e18c$e8c9e0e0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003501c1e11e$907c0580$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4MY$yBUKHXt8Ew3G@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 12:13:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 > > > >Richard Hills wrote: > > > >A friend attended a seminar given by top > >player R. Below are some quotes from my > >friend's debrief to me: > > > >>R has some noteworthy views on alerting. > >>I asked him a coupla questions during his > >>presentation and chatted afterwards to him > >>on the topic and the following examples > >>emerged. > >> > >>Eg1 1D P 1S 2C > >> P - shows 0-2 Spades, but R > >> doesn't alert. > > > >Not Alertable in ACBL-land. Here's what Gary Blaiss wrote me recently > >concerning passes and raises by support doublers: > > > >>***The pass and raise are not Alertable, however, > >the declarer is encouraged (in the 2nd paragraph of the Alert Chart) to > >offer to explain the auction whenever along with available inferences. > >[sic] > >****** > > > >>Eg2 1C P 1D 1S > >> P - denies four H's. Not > >> alerted. > > > >Surely Alertable, an unusual treatment. > > Why is it surely alertable? Do you know the Australian alerting > rules, Marv? > > Can I remind everyone: the basic rule for alerting is simple: > > You have to alert everything that your sponsoring organisation tells you > to, and nothing else. > > For something to be alertable because it is an unusual treatment the > SO must say that unusual treatments are alertable. > > Just because something is alertable in the ACBL that does not mean it > is alertable in Australia. > Okay, so I neglected to write "in ACBL-land," as I did for the first example. Big deal. Perhaps Richard Hill should in future say where these things occur. The "friend" could live in Pittsburgh, for all we know. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 06:21:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BKKl000036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 06:20:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BKKhH00032 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 06:20:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8722 invoked by uid 504); 11 Apr 2002 20:09:33 -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 0.95893 secs); 11 Apr 2002 20:09:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.174) by 0 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2002 20:09:32 -0000 Message-ID: <001401c1e194$3777ebe0$ae16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: Subject: [BLML] Ficticious Example Based on Fact Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:05:22 +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 (2d*) 2nt** (p) 3c*** ( p ) 3h**** ... * 2d is alerted and shows any unbal 2 or 3 suited, 11-15, no five-card major ** 2nt was alerted *** 3c was very slow and unalerted **** the 2nt bidder has axxxx kjxxx x xx Is there any justification in moving from a natural 3c when you (think you) have shown 5-5 in the majors with 2nt? As the table director, how do you handle this type of situation? Is it simply a case of adjusting to 3c down a bunch? The 3c bidder has 4 small and has apparently given a preference based on believing 2nt was for the minors. Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North New Zealand mailto:wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz Phone 0064 6 3551259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 06:37:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BKZw300049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 06:35:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BKZqH00045 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 06:35:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2866.bb.online.no [80.212.219.50]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA06831 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:24:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003601c1e196$e874d780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020321131219.00a62ec0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002c01c1d11c$c83831e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] 14 and 12 times 3 Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:24:39 +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: "David Stevenson" > >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. > > You find it reasonable that a player cannot count his cards before > both his partner and RHO have called? Seems unlikely! I cannot tell all the times I have seen the calls started at my table before I have completed counting my cards, not because I am slow, but due to a variety of other reasons which I do not care trying to enumerate. If for instance my partner and RHO both have looked at their cards and made calls while I am still busy counting my cards, and because I cannot make the count to 13 do count them again to be sure before alerting the Director I still claim that I am fully complying with law 7B1. So could West in the case starting this thread. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 06:51:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BKo9100065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 06:50:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BKo3H00061 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 06:50:04 +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 g3BKd1x15429 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:39:02 +0100 Message-ID: <1iVsEhCQNft8Ew0X@asimere.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:34:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient 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 >Kooijman, A. writes > >>Isn't the 6S bid that peculiar that partner most probably will remember the >>agreement now? > > I have played that 2N - 4N - 6S shows a maximum with five spades all >my life, so it does not sound at all peculiar to me. > At the Wood we play 1N 4N 6D as 6 diamonds :) -- 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 Apr 12 07:01:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BKxaW00080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 06:59:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BKxUH00076 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 06:59:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from penguin.ripe.net (penguin.ripe.net [193.0.1.232]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3BKmKu17693; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:48:20 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3BKmKk19916; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:48:20 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:48:19 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: "John (MadDog) Probst" cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... In-Reply-To: <6FsfdzB22Yt8Ewm7@asimere.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >> > > >> >North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts: > >> > > >> > West North East South > >> > -- 3 S Pass Pass > >> > 4 H Director please! > >> > > >> >The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?" > >> > > >> >South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I > >> >really wanted to bid 4S". > >> I ask what she intended to call as she reached for her bidding box. [ South admits that she changed her mind, now what.] > too late for 25B; UI to North. Tell her to bid 4S when it gets back to > her :) That's what I thought until the chair of the Dutch competitions committee (quoting the chair of the WBFLC) told me that when it is too late to apply 25B, 4S should be regarded as a bid out of turn and the TD should apply 31B here. This bars north from the auction. For this specific case, it probably doesn't matter (north will pass anyway). However, it does sound strange to me to apply 31B here: south never intended to bid out of turn, she just wanted to change her call. Comments? 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 Fri Apr 12 07:19:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BLIO500101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:18:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BLIJH00097 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:18:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA04759; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:07:27 -0700 Message-Id: <200204112107.OAA04759@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] 14 and 12 times 3 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:24:39 +0200." <003601c1e196$e874d780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 14:07:27 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: > From: "David Stevenson" > > >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. > > > > You find it reasonable that a player cannot count his cards before > > both his partner and RHO have called? Seems unlikely! > > I cannot tell all the times I have seen the calls started at my table before > I have completed counting my cards, not because I am slow, but due to > a variety of other reasons which I do not care trying to enumerate. I have to agree with Sven---this seems to happen to me, too. Sometimes it's because we're E-W and it takes me a little time to get seated. Another common occurrence is that the cards are sticky and I can only count 12 cards, so I try again, and when I still can count only 12 then I have to start over and count the cards very carefully to make sure there aren't two stuck together. -- 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 Apr 12 07:30:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BLRwh00114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:27:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BLRqH00110 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:27:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2866.bb.online.no [80.212.219.50]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA12378 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:16:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000901c1e19e$2c6feea0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:16:40 +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: "Henk Uijterwaal > > too late for 25B; UI to North. Tell her to bid 4S when it gets back to > > her :) > > That's what I thought until the chair of the Dutch competitions committee > (quoting the chair of the WBFLC) told me that when it is too late to apply > 25B, 4S should be regarded as a bid out of turn and the TD should apply > 31B here. This bars north from the auction. > > For this specific case, it probably doesn't matter (north will pass > anyway). However, it does sound strange to me to apply 31B here: south > never intended to bid out of turn, she just wanted to change her call. > > Comments? We all agree it is too late for Law 25B - LHO has called, so the questions to be asked are: Does Law25A apply? If yes then apply it - no problem. NO? Then it is a call out of turn - at partners turn to call - , and law 31B applies. North must pass, East makes his (her?) call and South may make her 4S bid as she said she wanted in the first place. (It is not correct by TD to make any statement which South may understand as an order to bid 4S ! ! ! TD must, however, clarify the case and all consequences to South) If she does not bid spades now nor later in the auction and becomes a defender law 26 will apply (with spades as the suit in question). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 07:55:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BLsth00134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:54:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BLsnH00128 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:54:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from penguin.ripe.net (penguin.ripe.net [193.0.1.232]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3BLhdu29497; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:43:39 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by penguin.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3BLhdQ25907; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:43:39 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: penguin.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 23:43:39 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: Sven Pran cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... In-Reply-To: <000901c1e19e$2c6feea0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > From: "Henk Uijterwaal > > > too late for 25B; UI to North. Tell her to bid 4S when it gets back to > > > her :) > > > > That's what I thought until the chair of the Dutch competitions committee > > (quoting the chair of the WBFLC) told me that when it is too late to apply > > 25B, 4S should be regarded as a bid out of turn and the TD should apply > > 31B here. This bars north from the auction. > > > > For this specific case, it probably doesn't matter (north will pass > > anyway). However, it does sound strange to me to apply 31B here: south > > never intended to bid out of turn, she just wanted to change her call. > > > > Comments? > > We all agree it is too late for Law 25B - LHO has called, > so the questions to be asked are: > > Does Law25A apply? If yes then apply it - no problem. > > NO? Then it is a call out of turn - at partners turn to call - , > and law 31B applies. No, south states that she wants to change her previous pass into 4S, she does not want to bid out of turn. The reason that it sounds like a BOOT, is that the TD asked why she called him. 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 Fri Apr 12 07:56:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BLtqp00146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:55:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BLtkH00142 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:55:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id HAA27034; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:57:39 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:42:18 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: "bthorp::.gov.au":"pcug.org.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 07:44:02 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/04/2002 07:42:12 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g3BLtlH00143 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: [snip] >>Surely Alertable, an unusual treatment. [snip] David Stevenson replied: [snip] >Why is it surely alertable? Do you know the >Australian alerting rules, Marv? [snip] The Australian Alerting rules include a catch- all clause which requires alerting of unusual treatments (unless the call concerned is self- alerting). The question I am interested in is which, if any, of the four examples in my original posting (reprinted below for convenience) qualify as *unusual treatments*? >Eg1   1D P 1S 2C >       P         - shows 0-2 Spades, but R > doesn't alert. > >Eg2   1C P 1D 1S >      P         - denies four H's. Not > alerted. > >Eg3   P P 1S    - R and his partners > commonly psyche here, > but they don't alert. > >Eg4  1D X 1S    - ditto to eg3 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 Apr 12 08:15:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BMFMP00171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:15:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BMFGH00166 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:15:16 +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 g3BM40M21659; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:04:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:55:38 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <000901c1e19e$2c6feea0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: <20020411180403-R01050000-819C6B80-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@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 4/11/02, Sven Pran wrote: >NO? Then it is a call out of turn - at partners turn to call - , >and law 31B applies. Wait a minute. South called the TD, and when he arrived, said to him "I just passed, but I really wanted to bid 4S". Granted she shouldn't have blurted out what she wanted to do, but how does that make it a call out of turn? She wasn't making a call, she was explaining to the TD why she called him. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 Apr 12 08:15:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BMFS100176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:15:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BMFLH00172 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:15:22 +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 g3BM49M21782; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:04:10 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:37:33 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020411180412-R01050000-86F9B600-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@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 4/11/02, David Stevenson wrote: >>A lot of TDs (and players) seem to start with #4, but that's the wrong place, >>IMO. > > Why? So long as you deal with all the steps, the order seems >irrelevant to me. Suppose 7H goes one off, are you suggesting the TD >has to decide whether there is UI, whether there are LAs to the chosen >action, and whether the chosen action was suggested by the UI first, and >only then say "but since 7H went off there is no damage"? I should have been more clear. I get the impression, from incidents I've seen and heard about, that (some? many?) TDs in the ACBL seem to leap directly from " there was a complaint and complainants seem to have been damaged" to "adjust the score". There are three other elements that must be verified first. Maybe my impression is wrong, but I'd have to be convinced. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 08:16:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BMFxt00198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:15:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BMFsH00193 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:15:54 +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 g3BM4NM22052; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 18:04:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:48:58 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: "Marvin L. French" cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001f01c1e18b$b32f2680$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20020411180422-R01050000-8CEF9700-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@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 4/11/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >Another argument for this >is the ACBL convention card, which (according to instructions for >filling it out) provides merely a "compreshensive overview" of the >partnership's system, not a detailed description. Interesting. Peter Mollemet (ACBL webmaster) tells me that "Regulations do not permit supplementary pages other than suggested defenses to items permitted on the mid/super chart." From this, I infer that if you can't fit it on the card, you can't play it (under the GCC). I've asked Peter to tell me where I can view the actual regulation, and he's working on that (this started because I couldn't find the regulation on the web site, so I asked him where it was. He didn't actually answer that question. :-) 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 Apr 12 08:39:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BMcgJ00213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:38:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BMcaH00209 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:38:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2866.bb.online.no [80.212.219.50]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA00754; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:27:25 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004101c1e1a8$0e2efbc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Henk Uijterwaal \(RIPE-NCC\)" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:27:23 +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: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > We all agree it is too late for Law 25B - LHO has called, > > so the questions to be asked are: > > > > Does Law25A apply? If yes then apply it - no problem. > > > > NO? Then it is a call out of turn - at partners turn to call - , > > and law 31B applies. > > No, south states that she wants to change her previous pass into 4S, she > does not want to bid out of turn. The reason that it sounds like a BOOT, > is that the TD asked why she called him. Why can't you see that the moment she utters the desire to bid 4S at her partners turn to call, with no chance of having her call change accepted under law25A, then it is a bid out of turn however strong her wish is to have it ruled as a (denied) change of call. When a director is summoned to a table is is customary to ask: 1 - who called me? 2 - why did you call me? This is no excuse for making a bid out of turn and call it a request for change of call under law25A. Of course if the circumstances are such that Law25A would be granted then fine. Not so here (I understand) and then there is only Law31B left to be used. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 08:39:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BMdZI00226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:39:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BMdTH00221 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:39:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05419; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:28:37 -0700 Message-Id: <200204112228.PAA05419@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Apr 2002 17:48:58 EDT." <20020411180422-R01050000-8CEF9700-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 15:28:36 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 4/11/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Another argument for this > >is the ACBL convention card, which (according to instructions for > >filling it out) provides merely a "compreshensive overview" of the > >partnership's system, not a detailed description. > > Interesting. Peter Mollemet (ACBL webmaster) tells me that > "Regulations do not permit supplementary pages other than suggested > defenses to items permitted on the mid/super chart." From this, I > infer that if you can't fit it on the card, you can't play it (under > the GCC). I've asked Peter to tell me where I can view the actual > regulation, and he's working on that (this started because I > couldn't find the regulation on the web site, so I asked him where > it was. He didn't actually answer that question. :-) So Meckwell (with their 800 pages of system notes) have been violating ACBL regulations the whole time? Does this mean we ought to take away all of their Vanderbilt and Spingold victories? Or does this alleged regulation apply only to peons? -- 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 Apr 12 08:47:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BMlGd00243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:47:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BMlAH00239 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:47:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2866.bb.online.no [80.212.219.50]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA00350; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:35:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004f01c1e1a9$3e27c180$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020411180403-R01050000-819C6B80-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:35:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > Wait a minute. South called the TD, and when he arrived, said to him "I just > passed, but I really wanted to bid 4S". Granted she shouldn't have blurted out > what she wanted to do, but how does that make it a call out of turn? She wasn't > making a call, she was explaining to the TD why she called him. And in a way which automatically invokes Law31B unless the application of law25A is granted. But there is really no harm to the offender: Although her partner now must pass whenever it is his(her?) turn to call for the rest of that auction she is perfectly free to bid 4S on her next turn to call. However, if she doesn't make such a bid in spades and thereafter becomes a defender then law26 will apply. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 08:52:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BMqmF00260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:52:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BMqhH00256 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:52:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 28282 invoked by uid 504); 11 Apr 2002 22:41:33 -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 1.054245 secs); 11 Apr 2002 22:41:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.151) by 0 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2002 22:41:32 -0000 Message-ID: <009101c1e1a9$73265860$ae16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:37:22 +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: To: Cc: bthorp::.gov.au : pcug.org.au:> <@bertha.au.csc.net> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts > The question I am interested in is which, if > any, of the four examples in my original posting > (reprinted below for convenience) qualify as > *unusual treatments*? > > >Eg1 1D P 1S 2C > > P - shows 0-2 Spades, but R > > doesn't alert. > > > >Eg2 1C P 1D 1S > > P - denies four H's. Not > > alerted. > > > >Eg3 P P 1S - R and his partners > > commonly psyche here, > > but they don't alert. > > > >Eg4 1D X 1S - ditto to eg3 > I meant to say in my previous post that I have noted a number of good players will not alert in these and similar situations but will volunteer information before their opponents make the opening lead. I even have done this myself e.g. 1c 1h; 1nt all pass - no alerts but volunteer 1nt could conceal a 4-card spade suit. I find this approach helpful as a player but it has the big drawback of only working when your side declares. 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 Apr 12 09:27:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BNRXo00283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:27:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BNRSH00279 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:27:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05804; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:16:36 -0700 Message-Id: <200204112316.QAA05804@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:27:23 +0200." <004101c1e1a8$0e2efbc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:16:36 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven wrote: > From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" > > > We all agree it is too late for Law 25B - LHO has called, > > > so the questions to be asked are: > > > > > > Does Law25A apply? If yes then apply it - no problem. > > > > > > NO? Then it is a call out of turn - at partners turn to call - , > > > and law 31B applies. > > > > No, south states that she wants to change her previous pass into 4S, she > > does not want to bid out of turn. The reason that it sounds like a BOOT, > > is that the TD asked why she called him. > > Why can't you see that the moment she utters the desire to bid 4S at > her partners turn to call, with no chance of having her call change > accepted under law25A, then it is a bid out of turn however strong her > wish is to have it ruled as a (denied) change of call. Why should we see it that way? A bid is a bid, and a comment is a comment, and a comment is not a bid. If partner opens 1S, (pass), I bid 2S, (pass), and then I say "Dammit, I should have bid 1NT", that is highly illegal and provides UI to partner, and I ought to be severely punished for making this remark; but it is still a comment, NOT a bid, and Law 31 doesn't apply because I haven't made a bid out of turn. Can you find anywhere in the Laws that says an offhand remark like this, or some other comment, should be treated as a bid? I can't. -- 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 Apr 12 09:28:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BNSIr00299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:28:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3BNSDH00291 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:28:13 +1000 (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 g3BNH7P24646 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009001c1e1ae$f506b0a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020411180422-R01050000-8CEF9700-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:16:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 4/11/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Another argument for this > >is the ACBL convention card, which (according to instructions for > >filling it out) provides merely a "compreshensive overview" of the > >partnership's system, not a detailed description. > > Interesting. Peter Mollemet (ACBL webmaster) tells me that "Regulations do not > permit supplementary pages other than suggested defenses to items permitted on > the mid/super chart." From this, I infer that if you can't fit it on the card, > you can't play it (under the GCC). I've asked Peter to tell me where I can view > the actual regulation, and he's working on that (this started because I couldn't > find the regulation on the web site, so I asked him where it was. He didn't > actually answer that question. :-) > The ACBL website instructions for filling out the CC probably constitute "an actual regulation." These used to be located at www.acbl.org/convcard/how2fill.htm, but the page is no longer there. Perhaps because it needs revising to accord with the changes of March 1. It is a very good 15-page document, with which I (surprise!) could not find anything to nitpick. I presume someone is working up a revision. I did find this regulation on the website regarding carding and leads: "Full disclosure of all non-standard carding and lead agreements which cannot be defined on the current convention card is required." The "lost" instructions started out as follows: "The ACBL convention card is designed to be easier for players to use by making available pertinent information to the opponents (a comprehensive overview of your system). It should provide players with a good idea of the methods they have chosen to play and make them more aware of calls that require an Alert (in red) or an Announcement (in blue)." I will nitpick this after all, by quoting the ACBL Encyclopedia of Bridge: "It is used by players in duplicate bridge to indicate to opponents the conventions and special understandings a pair has." That is, the purpose of the CC is to communicate with opponents, not with partner. That it has auxiliary purposes, like reminding players of what they have agreed to, or providing documentation of agreements for the TD/AC to examine, does not detract from its main purpose. As I see it, pairs are permitted to have special partnership agreements for which there is no place on the CC, provided that they are legal per the applicable Convention Chart and are Alerted properly. That is one plus for the ACBL Alert Procedure, which (in effect) requires an Alert for the use of any special partnership agreement not plainly shown on the CC. If you communicate further with Peter, tell him that the ACBL Regulations page is way out of date, for instance: Carding Pre-Alerts Discontinued On Jan. 1, 1996, use of the ACBL convention card approved for implementation as of Jan 1, 1994, at sectional and higher-rated events became mandatory. Along with this, players are asked to refrain from announcing defensive carding agreements which can be clearly noted on the convention card. It is the declarer's responsibility to look at the opponent's card (best) or to inquire. That's old news, and besides one lead is now Pre-Alertable (low from a weak doubleton). There is a new CC again, but no one has said when its use becomes mandatory. Just as well, since the regulation quoted above was never heeded or enforced. Also, at the bottom of the page it says to contact Chyah Burghard, ACBL Web Administrator, with any comments. Better get that changed! 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 Apr 12 09:46:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BNkIX00316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:46:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BNkCH00312 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:46:13 +1000 (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 g3BNZ7P01897 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <009801c1e1b1$786db040$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200204112228.PAA05419@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:34:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > On 4/11/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >Another argument for this > > >is the ACBL convention card, which (according to instructions for > > >filling it out) provides merely a "compreshensive overview" of the > > >partnership's system, not a detailed description. > > > > Interesting. Peter Mollemet (ACBL webmaster) tells me that > > "Regulations do not permit supplementary pages other than suggested > > defenses to items permitted on the mid/super chart." From this, I > > infer that if you can't fit it on the card, you can't play it (under > > the GCC). An unwarranted inference. Peter no doubt had in mind supplemental additions to the CC for at-the-table disclosure purposes. It occurs to me now that there is no ACBL sanction for the printed Pre-Alert cards that are shoved in front of me occasionally. > > I've asked Peter to tell me where I can view the actual > > regulation, and he's working on that (this started because I > > couldn't find the regulation on the web site, so I asked him where > > it was. He didn't actually answer that question. :-) > > So Meckwell (with their 800 pages of system notes) have been violating > ACBL regulations the whole time? Does this mean we ought to take away > all of their Vanderbilt and Spingold victories? > > Or does this alleged regulation apply only to peons? I'm sure Peter was thinking of less prestigious events than those you mention. Some events require that system notes be made available to opponents in advance of actual play. That is up to the sponsoring organization's Conditions of Contest, I suppose, but I'm pretty sure it would be illegal to hand opponents an 800-page document when sitting down at the table of any event. Also, it is important to have system notes available in case a TD or AC demands proof of an unusual partnership agreement. Everyone should do that. I lost an appeal (St Louis No. 2) because I could not show documentary proof that a double I pulled had to be pulled by system requirement, and the AC would not take my word for it. Since then I don't leave my system notes at home! 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 Apr 12 09:56:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3BNuYO00330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:56:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3BNuTH00326 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:56:29 +1000 (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 g3BNjNP06390 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:45:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a301c1e1b2$e7b7df60$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <009101c1e1a9$73265860$ae16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 16:45:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Wayne Burrows" > I meant to say in my previous post that I have noted a number of good > players will not alert in these and similar situations but will volunteer > information before their opponents make the opening lead. I even have done > this myself e.g. 1c 1h; 1nt all pass - no alerts but volunteer 1nt could > conceal a 4-card spade suit. > > I find this approach helpful as a player but it has the big drawback of only > working when your side declares. > Good for you, Wayne, doing what the ACBL recommends (but doesn't mandate) in its Principle of Full Disclosure. Now that major suit bypasses and many other treatments are no longer Alertable, the ACBL should *require* that such disclosures by made by the declaring side. Defenders can't volunteer such information, of course, but declarers should get in the habit of asking: "Is there anything pertaining to your auction that I might need to know?" Those too lazy to ask this question deserve any adverse consequences of their ignorance. 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 Apr 12 10:26:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C0QZB00352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:26:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3C0QTH00348 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:26:30 +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 g3C0FSx16018 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:15:28 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:14:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... References: <6FsfdzB22Yt8Ewm7@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >> >On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >> >> > >> >> >North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts: >> >> > >> >> > West North East South >> >> > -- 3 S Pass Pass >> >> > 4 H Director please! >> >> > >> >> >The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?" >> >> > >> >> >South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I >> >> >really wanted to bid 4S". > >> >> I ask what she intended to call as she reached for her bidding box. > >[ South admits that she changed her mind, now what.] > >> too late for 25B; UI to North. Tell her to bid 4S when it gets back to >> her :) > >That's what I thought until the chair of the Dutch competitions committee >(quoting the chair of the WBFLC) told me that when it is too late to apply >25B, 4S should be regarded as a bid out of turn and the TD should apply >31B here. This bars north from the auction. > I don't agree. I find no basis for South having tried to BOOT. She was trying to change a call. How one can get from Law 25 to law 31 is a leap of imagination that defeats even me. >For this specific case, it probably doesn't matter (north will pass >anyway). However, it does sound strange to me to apply 31B here: south >never intended to bid out of turn, she just wanted to change her call. > >Comments? > >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/ -- 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 Apr 12 10:30:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C0Tup00364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:29:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3C0TpH00360 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:29:51 +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 g3C0Inx16022 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:18:49 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 01:17:25 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... References: <004101c1e1a8$0e2efbc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <004101c1e1a8$0e2efbc0$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 <004101c1e1a8$0e2efbc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" >> > We all agree it is too late for Law 25B - LHO has called, >> > so the questions to be asked are: >> > >> > Does Law25A apply? If yes then apply it - no problem. >> > >> > NO? Then it is a call out of turn - at partners turn to call - , >> > and law 31B applies. >> >> No, south states that she wants to change her previous pass into 4S, she >> does not want to bid out of turn. The reason that it sounds like a BOOT, >> is that the TD asked why she called him. > >Why can't you see that the moment she utters the desire to bid 4S at >her partners turn to call, with no chance of having her call change >accepted under law25A, then it is a bid out of turn however strong her >wish is to have it ruled as a (denied) change of call. > >When a director is summoned to a table is is customary to ask: >1 - who called me? >2 - why did you call me? >This is no excuse for making a bid out of turn and call it a request >for change of call under law25A. > >Of course if the circumstances are such that Law25A would be >granted then fine. Not so here (I understand) and then there is only >Law31B left to be used. > Since Law 25 cannot be applied, all that is left is UI for her partner that she wished to bid 4S at her previous turn to call. She has not attempted to bid 4S OOT and it is not her intent to do so. Therefore there is no call OOT. Law 31 just is not applicable. this is a silly interpretation of the law. >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Apr 12 10:41:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C0evh00377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:40:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3C0erH00373 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:40:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 19996 invoked by uid 504); 12 Apr 2002 00:29:43 -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 1.335288 secs); 12 Apr 2002 00:29:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.208) by 0 with SMTP; 12 Apr 2002 00:29:41 -0000 Message-ID: <00b601c1e1b8$8ebbf800$ae16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <009101c1e1a9$73265860$ae16b9d2@laptop> <00a301c1e1b2$e7b7df60$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:25:31 +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, April 12, 2002 11:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts > > From: "Wayne Burrows" > > > > I meant to say in my previous post that I have noted a number of good > > players will not alert in these and similar situations but will > volunteer > > information before their opponents make the opening lead. I even have > done > > this myself e.g. 1c 1h; 1nt all pass - no alerts but volunteer 1nt > could > > conceal a 4-card spade suit. > > > > I find this approach helpful as a player but it has the big drawback > of only > > working when your side declares. > > > Good for you, Wayne, doing what the ACBL recommends (but doesn't > mandate) in its Principle of Full Disclosure. Now that major suit > bypasses and many other treatments are no longer Alertable, the ACBL > should *require* that such disclosures by made by the declaring side. > > Defenders can't volunteer such information, of course, but declarers > should get in the habit of asking: "Is there anything pertaining to your > auction that I might need to know?" Those too lazy to ask this question > deserve any adverse consequences of their ignorance. To my mind this is harsh given L40B - "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." 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 Apr 12 11:14:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C1EFD00408 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:14:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3C1E9H00399 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:14:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3C12vM21187; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:02:14 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: <20020411210301-R01050000-81F53080-4D8F-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@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 4/12/02, Sven Pran wrote: >And in a way which automatically invokes Law31B unless the application >of law25A is granted. > >But there is really no harm to the offender: Although her partner now >must pass whenever it is his(her?) turn to call for the rest of that auction >she is perfectly free to bid 4S on her next turn to call. >However, if she doesn't make such a bid in spades and thereafter becomes >a defender then law26 will apply. Huh. And I thought *my* attitude towards administering the laws was draconian! :-) I'm sorry, Sven, but I just can't buy it. She did *not* make a call, much less a call out of turn. Law 31B does not apply. She described what she wanted to do at her previous turn, and that's all she did. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage 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 Apr 12 11:14:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C1EIt00409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:14:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3C1ECH00404 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:14:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3C131M21269; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:03:02 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 20:51:10 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Adam Beneschan cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200204112228.PAA05419@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <20020411210304-R01050000-83BEF400-4D8F-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@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 4/11/02, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Or does this alleged regulation apply only to peons? I suspect that Peter has been given MI, :-) but I'm waiting to see the actual cc regs before I make up I mind. 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 Apr 12 11:24:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C1Of500428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:24:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3C1OaH00424 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:24:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu ([68.32.52.241]) by mtaout04.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Feb 6 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GUF00MUNKQCTU@mtaout04.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:13:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:09:18 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ficticious Example Based on Fact In-reply-to: <001401c1e194$3777ebe0$ae16b9d2@laptop> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020411205922.01628528@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 08:05 AM 4/12/2002 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >Hi > >(2d*) 2nt** (p) 3c*** >( p ) 3h**** ... > >* 2d is alerted and shows any unbal 2 or 3 suited, 11-15, no five-card major > >** 2nt was alerted > >*** 3c was very slow and unalerted > >**** the 2nt bidder has axxxx kjxxx x xx > >Is there any justification in moving from a natural 3c when you (think you) >have shown 5-5 in the majors with 2nt? No. You have exactly what partner expects you to have, and you even have an extra club. 3H here would show at least six hearts, say Axxxx KJxxxx xx -. >As the table director, how do you handle this type of situation? Is it >simply a case of adjusting to 3c down a bunch? I think it is a proper adjustment, but it has to be based on the 2NT bidder making a bid that could have been suggested by UI. The alert of 2NT does not suggest anything (since 2NT for the minors and 2NT for the majors are apparently both alertable), but the very slow pass is. It indicates that partner was considering some other call, and it appears to have suggested to this player that partner forgot the agreement. The 3C call itself does not suggest that partner forgot; he could have xx Ax Kxx QJTxxx. (The adjustment would probably be to 3C down a bunch, although it would depend on possible follow-up auctions. If 3C might have been doubled and left in, or fourth hand might have competed to 3D for +110 against +100, that would be the adjusted score.) >The 3c bidder has 4 small and has apparently given a preference based on >believing 2nt was for the 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 Fri Apr 12 11:26:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C1Q8F00440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:26:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3C1Q3H00436 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:26:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA27497 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:27:55 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:12:34 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Roll back the contract To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:13:12 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/04/2002 11:12:28 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >If you reduce the charm of the game, you reduce the >number of players: the fact that poor pairs have their >day is one of the things that keeps them playing. > > I play fairly regularly at Blundellsands BC with >three ladies who are fair, but think of themselves of >poorer than they are. > > Last Wednesday two of them got 72% together while I >got 53% with the third, and my friend Ron who wins more >than anyone else there got 47%. You think this "charm" >should be taken away? You think we do not need this? > You think they will forget this in a hurry? > >-- >David Stevenson I enjoyed a charming 3D partscore recently. With a nine card semi-solid trump fit, missing only the Ace and the Ten, I was forced to take a first round finesse against the Ten. It worked!! Now all I needed was 2-2 trumps, but alas they were 3-1. 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 Apr 12 11:44:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C1hlr00458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:43:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3C1hfH00454 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:43:42 +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 g3C1WOM03662; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 21:22:50 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: "Marvin L. French" cc: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <009001c1e1ae$f506b0a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20020411213228-R01050000-9F2BFE00-4D93-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@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 4/11/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >The ACBL website instructions for filling out the CC probably constitute >"an actual regulation." Sez who? :-) >These used to be located at www.acbl.org/convcard/how2fill.htm, but the >page is no longer there. Perhaps because it needs revising to accord >with the changes of March 1. It is a very good 15-page document, with >which I (surprise!) could not find anything to nitpick. I presume >someone is working up a revision. At http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/conventioncards/convcard/how2fill.htm is "How to Fill Out The New Convention Card". Whether that refers to the new New Convention Card, or the old one (ca. 1997, as I understand it) is unclear to me. >As I see it, pairs are permitted to have special partnership agreements >for which there is no place on the CC, provided that they are legal per >the applicable Convention Chart and are Alerted properly. That is one >plus for the ACBL Alert Procedure, which (in effect) requires an Alert >for the use of any special partnership agreement not plainly shown on >the CC. That would be my understanding, too. >If you communicate further with Peter, tell him that the ACBL >Regulations page is way out of date, for instance: I suspect you have some old bookmarks. The current ACBL Regulations page has only four items on it: links labelled, respectively, "skip bid warnings", "recorder", "disciplinary", and "bid box rules". It's at http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1832&PID=9687 I've been complaining about that page for yonks. Mostly that *all* the damn regulations aren't there. Not talking about disciplinary regs, really, or about "how to run a club or tournament" regs, or any of that; just regs that affect what goes on at the table. They ought to be all in one easily accessible (to players as well as TDs) place. They aren't. That, IMNSHO, sucks. :-( 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 Apr 12 15:25:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C5NiS00583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:23:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3C5NcH00579 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:23:38 +1000 (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 g3C5CVq13963 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00c601c1e1e0$9b72cb00$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <009101c1e1a9$73265860$ae16b9d2@laptop> <00a301c1e1b2$e7b7df60$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00b601c1e1b8$8ebbf800$ae16b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:12:09 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > Marv French wrote: > > Defenders can't volunteer such information, of course, but declarers > > should get in the habit of asking: "Is there anything pertaining to your > > auction that I might need to know?" Those too lazy to ask this question > > deserve any adverse consequences of their ignorance. > > To my mind this is harsh given L40B - > "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership > understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to > understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or > play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation." > But Wayne, the SO's disclosure regulations forbid defenders to volunteer non-Alertable information, such as their possible bypass of a major suit to bid notrump. They aren't supposed to Alert either, so what do you expect them to do? I would like to Alert my partner's deuce lead as possibly from a weak doubleton, as disclosed by a pre-Alert, because declarers often go wrong out of habit. Of course that's not allowed, so all I can do is make sure that the lead side of my CC is close to declarer, oriented for easy reading. If declarer is too lazy to look, hard cheese. Sometimes SO disclosure regulations prevent timely disclosure! Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 16:09:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C68jU00630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:08:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3C68eH00626 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:08:40 +1000 (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 g3C5vYq00173 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:57:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00d901c1e1e6$e6006dc0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020411213228-R01050000-9F2BFE00-4D93-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 22:55:41 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 4/11/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >The ACBL website instructions for filling out the CC probably constitute > >"an actual regulation." > > Sez who? :-) No comment. > > >These used to be located at www.acbl.org/convcard/how2fill.htm, but the > >page is no longer there. Perhaps because it needs revising to accord > >with the changes of March 1. It is a very good 15-page document, with > >which I (surprise!) could not find anything to nitpick. I presume > >someone is working up a revision. > > At http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/conventioncards/convcard/how2fill .htm > is "How to Fill Out The New Convention Card". Whether that refers to the new New > Convention Card, or the old one (ca. 1997, as I understand it) is unclear to me. How did you find this? Anyway, it's the one that used to be on the ACBL website, no longer applicable. It does not refer to the current CC. > > >As I see it, pairs are permitted to have special partnership agreements > >for which there is no place on the CC, provided that they are legal per > >the applicable Convention Chart and are Alerted properly. That is one > >plus for the ACBL Alert Procedure, which (in effect) requires an Alert > >for the use of any special partnership agreement not plainly shown on > >the CC. > > That would be my understanding, too. > > >If you communicate further with Peter, tell him that the ACBL > >Regulations page is way out of date, for instance: > > I suspect you have some old bookmarks. The current ACBL Regulations page has > only four items on it: links labelled, respectively, "skip bid warnings", > "recorder", "disciplinary", and "bid box rules". It's at > http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1832&PID=9687 Oh yeah? Try http://www.acbl.org/regulations/regulate.htm The trouble is, I can't find a path to this from the home page (used a Google website search), but it has lots of regulations. Must be a "fossil," but the regs appear to be current. The contents: Carding Pre-Alerts Discontinued ACBL Alert Procedure ACBL Code of Disciplinary Regulations ACBL Conduct Regulations ACBL Convention Regulations ACBL Rank Designations Active Ethics Pamphlet Bidding Box Mechanics and Etiquette Blue, Red, & Silver Ribbon Pairs Regulations Conversion of Masterpoints from Other Organizations Handbook for Appeals Committees Joining the ACBL NABC Regulations Skip Bid Regulations Tournament Regulations > > I've been complaining about that page for yonks. Mostly that *all* the damn > regulations aren't there. > Not talking about disciplinary regs, really, or about > "how to run a club or tournament" regs, or any of that; just regs that affect > what goes on at the table. They ought to be all in one easily accessible (to > players as well as TDs) place. They aren't. That, IMNSHO, sucks. :-( By now it seems to me you are the only person who can could come up with a comprehensive list of regulations, and I urge you to do so. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, CA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 17:42:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C7fil00671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:41:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3C7fcH00667 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:41:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2532.bb.online.no [80.212.217.228]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA11995 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:30:26 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006901c1e1f3$ea06c7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020411210301-R01050000-81F53080-4D8F-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:30:18 +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 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'm sorry, Sven, but I just can't buy it. She did *not* make a call, much less > a call out of turn. Law 31B does not apply. She described what she wanted to do > at her previous turn, and that's all she did. Technically I agree with all those who objected to my logic. But if accepting those objections: Please consider a player who says (not using bid boxes) at his turn to call: I would actually preferred to start with 1 spade, but no - 1Club! Has he made one or two calls? Is it only UI to partner or is it a change of call? If you pretend to be consistent you should say that he didn't bid 1 spade at all, he just mentioned he would have preferred to do so. I would rule that for all practical purposes the correct ruling must be to apply Law 25 (change of mind, not inadvertent change of call). Incidently, the sloppy player who reluctantly says "I think I shall pass" hasn't technically made any call yet, he has only indicated what he (probably) is going to call, so if his LHO makes a call without awaiting a final decision might very well (with the above logic) face a claim of calling out of turn! Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 17:50:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C7no500689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:49:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g3C7nhH00682 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:49:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.84.148] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16vvdJ-000GLU-00; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:38:10 +0100 Message-ID: <001c01c1e1f5$2cde7c60$9454e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200204112316.QAA05804@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:37:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: Friday, April 12, 2002 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... > > Can you find anywhere in the Laws that says an offhand > remark like this, or some other comment, should be > treated as a bid? I can't. > > -- Adam >................................................................... ................ +=+ The WBFLC has made no ruling that such a remark is a bid. Nor do I recall any such ruling by the EBL Laws Committee. We are discussing personal opinions here. Mine is that a conversation with the Director is not part of the legal auction. A remark to the Director in the presence of partner may convey UI to the partner. Additionally, if bidding cards are in use it is likely that the regulations will establish when a call is 'made'. ~ 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 Apr 12 17:50:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3C7nmD00688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:49:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g3C7nfH00679 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:49:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.84.148] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16vvdH-000GLU-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:38:08 +0100 Message-ID: <001b01c1e1f5$2bb05ca0$9454e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020411210301-R01050000-81F53080-4D8F-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:36:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 2:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... > > I'm sorry, Sven, but I just can't buy it. She did *not* > make a call, much less a call out of turn. Law 31B > does not apply. She described what she wanted to > do at her previous turn, and that's all she did. > +=+ What blml has done above all else is to reveal how regions have diverged in their conduct of the game. All of us meet situations that are, for each of us, seemingly bizarre - depending where we start out. Sven and others have made an argument that, for me, does not have any roots and I just cannot imagine how the belief could have grown. ~ 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 Apr 12 20:33:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CAWvS00782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:32:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CAWdH00760 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:32:40 +1000 (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 16vyBN-000Nor-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:21:31 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:28:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Another pausey case ... References: <20020411180412-R01050000-86F9B600-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> In-Reply-To: <20020411180412-R01050000-86F9B600-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@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 4/11/02, David Stevenson wrote: > >>>A lot of TDs (and players) seem to start with #4, but that's the wrong place, >>>IMO. >> >> Why? So long as you deal with all the steps, the order seems >>irrelevant to me. Suppose 7H goes one off, are you suggesting the TD >>has to decide whether there is UI, whether there are LAs to the chosen >>action, and whether the chosen action was suggested by the UI first, and >>only then say "but since 7H went off there is no damage"? > >I should have been more clear. I get the impression, from incidents I've seen >and heard about, that (some? many?) TDs in the ACBL seem to leap directly from " >there was a complaint and complainants seem to have been damaged" to "adjust the >score". There are three other elements that must be verified first. Maybe my >impression is wrong, but I'd have to be convinced. :-) There is no doubt that all the steps need to be covered to adjust, but the order seems irrelevant to me. In fact, some orders make it quicker *not* to adjust. For example, if there are no LAs to the chosen action then no more consideration is necessary. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 20:33:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CAWua00780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:32:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CAWdH00759 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:32:39 +1000 (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 16vyBN-000Nou-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:21:30 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:40:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... References: <20020411180403-R01050000-819C6B80-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <004f01c1e1a9$3e27c180$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <004f01c1e1a9$3e27c180$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: "Ed Reppert" > >> Wait a minute. South called the TD, and when he arrived, said to him "I >just >> passed, but I really wanted to bid 4S". Granted she shouldn't have blurted >out >> what she wanted to do, but how does that make it a call out of turn? She >wasn't >> making a call, she was explaining to the TD why she called him. > >And in a way which automatically invokes Law31B unless the application >of law25A is granted. Of course not. There was no bid out of turn so why invoke L31B? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 20:33:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CAX1l00784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:33:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CAWhH00770 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:32:49 +1000 (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 16vyBT-000Nou-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:21:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:43:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... References: <$st+q8RcfWt8EwkS@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >> > >> >North, all vul, Pairs, bottom of flight C. The auction starts: >> > >> > West North East South >> > -- 3 S Pass Pass >> > 4 H Director please! >> > >> >The TD comes over and asks "How can I help you?" >> > >> >South puts her hand in front of the TD and says "I just passed but I >> >really wanted to bid 4S". >> > >> >Now what? And why? And which Law do you apply? >> >> I ask what she intended to call as she reached for her bidding box. >> If the answer is 4S then I let her bid 4S. > >Even though 4S is in an entirely different section of the bidding box and >it is unlikely that she mispulled. This argument has been shown to be wrong too many times. It was even part of the regs at one time. TDs should decide each case on its merits, and not go for some rule which has exceptions. >Anyway, south now replies "I just realized that partner has 7 tricks, 7+3 >equals 10, so I want to play 4S". Fine, so L25A does not apply. >> As for why, she presumably thinks pd opened, but that is no concern of >> the TD's. >> >> >ps. In case you wondered, the TD sees Axx/xx/AQxx/Axxx. And no, the TD >> >could not avoid seeing the cards. >> >> He should not look. > >The TD in question knows, but he just couldn't avoid seeing the cards. When there is a question of a change of call, TDs know the player will often show them their cards. I find looking is avoidable: even if I close my eyes, or more likely look away immediately. I am expecting the cards to be put in front of my face, and I do not see them when they are. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 20:33:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CAWvU00783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:32:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CAWdH00762 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:32:40 +1000 (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 16vyBN-000Not-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:21:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:39:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... References: <004101c1e1a8$0e2efbc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <004101c1e1a8$0e2efbc0$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: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" >> > We all agree it is too late for Law 25B - LHO has called, >> > so the questions to be asked are: >> > >> > Does Law25A apply? If yes then apply it - no problem. >> > >> > NO? Then it is a call out of turn - at partners turn to call - , >> > and law 31B applies. >> >> No, south states that she wants to change her previous pass into 4S, she >> does not want to bid out of turn. The reason that it sounds like a BOOT, >> is that the TD asked why she called him. > >Why can't you see that the moment she utters the desire to bid 4S at >her partners turn to call, with no chance of having her call change >accepted under law25A, then it is a bid out of turn however strong her >wish is to have it ruled as a (denied) change of call. Why is it a bid out of turn when she did not bid? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 20:33:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CAWvC00781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:32:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CAWdH00761 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:32:40 +1000 (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 16vyBN-000Nos-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:21:32 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:37:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... References: <6FsfdzB22Yt8Ewm7@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> too late for 25B; UI to North. Tell her to bid 4S when it gets back to >> her :) > >That's what I thought until the chair of the Dutch competitions committee >(quoting the chair of the WBFLC) told me that when it is too late to apply >25B, 4S should be regarded as a bid out of turn and the TD should apply >31B here. This bars north from the auction. > >For this specific case, it probably doesn't matter (north will pass >anyway). However, it does sound strange to me to apply 31B here: south >never intended to bid out of turn, she just wanted to change her call. > >Comments? She did not call, did she? So it is not a call out of turn. A statement of intent is not a call, surely. Did she take the cards out of the bidding box? No? A call is made when they are taken out of the bidding box in every jurisdiction that I know except the ACBL, who have changed that recently. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 21:20:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CBJmK00842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:19:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CBJcH00834 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:19:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3CB8Pq23116 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:08:25 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:08 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts 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: > The question I am interested in is which, if > any, of the four examples in my original posting > (reprinted below for convenience) qualify as > *unusual treatments*? Answers based on UK rather than Australia. > >Eg1   1D P 1S 2C > >       P         - shows 0-2 Spades, but R > > doesn't alert. Personally I would alert. Support doubles are uncommon around here IME and the implications are unlikely to be widely understood. However I would seldom expect opponents to be damaged by a lack of alert since one would generally expect someone with 3S to bid 2S here. > >Eg2   1C P 1D 1S > >      P         - denies four H's. Not > > alerted. Not particularly unusual in reality (except by being explicit). Opponents would certainly expect hands with 4+ hearts and 5+ spades to X here. > >Eg3   P P 1S    - R and his partners > > commonly psyche here, > > but they don't alert. Alertable if it (relatively) frequently doesn't show spades (and should probably be on CC as well) - may even be an illegal convention if often bid with C and the pair is playing Drury. Not alertable if it is often made on very weak hands with 4+ spades. > >Eg4  1D X 1S    - ditto to eg3 Alertable if playing against children. Anyone outside a kindergarten who thinks this call promises spades should get some basic lessons. (Although unlike 1H-X-1S I would not go so far as to say it tends to deny spades.) 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 Apr 12 21:20:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CBJmq00843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:19:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CBJcH00835 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:19:39 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3CB8OW23074 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:08:24 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 12:08 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid 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: > >Isn't the 6S bid that peculiar that partner most probably will > remember the > >agreement now? > > I have played that 2N - 4N - 6S shows a maximum with five spades all > my life, so it does not sound at all peculiar to me. Nor to me. But with K73,KQ5,QJ73,852 - slow values and no ruffing potential 6N is almost always going to be the better contract at pairs. Not sure about teams, I think 6N is still correct but could be persuaded that pass was an LA. (If the partnership has no opening bid to show a strong hand with 6 good spades then pass is certainly an LA at teams). 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 Apr 12 21:47:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CBlJ900868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:47:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3CBl5H00864 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:47:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3CBZeH11416 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:35:40 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Apr 12 13:31:54 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGH7TEM9D2001HSZ@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:35:25 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2VAZ1ZT7>; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:35:05 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:35:24 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] more than sufficient bid To: "'twm@cix.compulink.co.uk'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > >Isn't the 6S bid that peculiar that partner most probably will > > remember the > > >agreement now? > > > > I have played that 2N - 4N - 6S shows a maximum with five > spades all > > my life, so it does not sound at all peculiar to me. > > Nor to me. But with K73,KQ5,QJ73,852 - slow values and no ruffing > potential 6N is almost always going to be the better contract at > pairs. Not sure about teams, I think 6N is still correct but > could be > persuaded that pass was an LA. (If the partnership has no > opening bid to > show a strong hand with 6 good spades then pass is certainly an LA at > teams). > > Tim Thank you all for your well considered reactions. Though it was pairs I have the feeling that my ethical standard, at least in this case, might be questioned. 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 Apr 12 22:15:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CCF3D00940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 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 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 g3CCEwH00936 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:14:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16vzmQ-0004XE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:03:50 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020412075743.00a938c0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:03:56 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... In-Reply-To: <004f01c1e1a9$3e27c180$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <20020411180403-R01050000-819C6B80-4D76-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@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 06:35 PM 4/11/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" > > > Wait a minute. South called the TD, and when he arrived, said to him "I >just > > passed, but I really wanted to bid 4S". Granted she shouldn't have > blurted >out > > what she wanted to do, but how does that make it a call out of > turn? She >wasn't > > making a call, she was explaining to the TD why she called him. > >And in a way which automatically invokes Law31B unless the application >of law25A is granted. How so? L31 applies "when a player has bid out of rotation", and I see nothing in the laws that makes S's "but I really wanted to bid 4S" a presumptively made bid. Nor do I see any interpretation that would make it so without making *any* bid named during a conversation between a player and the TD a made bid. Bidding is bidding, and conversations are conversations. The consequences of what you say when you're bidding and what you say when you're conversing are governed by entirely different laws. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 22:43:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CCgrY00989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:42:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CCgiH00985 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:42:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16w0DJ-0000cb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:31:37 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020412081850.00af4850@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 08:31:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts In-Reply-To: <00c601c1e1e0$9b72cb00$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <009101c1e1a9$73265860$ae16b9d2@laptop> <00a301c1e1b2$e7b7df60$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00b601c1e1b8$8ebbf800$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 01:12 AM 4/12/02, Marvin wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: > > > To my mind this is harsh given L40B - > > "A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership > > understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to > > understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such >call or > > play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring >organisation." > >But Wayne, the SO's disclosure regulations forbid defenders to volunteer >non-Alertable information, such as their possible bypass of a major suit >to bid notrump. They aren't supposed to Alert either, so what do you >expect them to do? I think this situation represents a step in the right direction. IMO, the major thing that has made a hash of the ACBL alert procedure is the insidious and wrongheaded notion that a lack of an alert must unambiguously define the partnership agreement. This is not true; as Marv has repeatedly pointed out, there is a reason why L40B applies not to all partnership understandings, but only to "special" ones, which the ACBL interpreted way back when they introduced the alert procedure as meaning "ununsual, uncommon or unexpected". The ACBL has simply said that holding, say, Qxxx/xx/Kxxx/Kxx on 1H-P-?, neither the agreement to respond with 1S nor the agreement to respond with 1NT is "unusual, uncommon or unexpected". They are right, and are to be commended for being willing to reverse their previous course and say so. I hope we shall see more such changes in the future; it is a sensible and logical course towards achieving the ACBL's stated objective of simplifying their alert regs. 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 Apr 12 23:19:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CDIwv01021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:18:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl (smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.141]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3CDIqH01017 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:18:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from compaq (kavdw.xs4all.nl [213.84.30.42]) by smtpzilla5.xs4all.nl (8.12.0/8.12.0) with SMTP id g3CD7g8t004270; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:07:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <009a01c1e222$c9ee7d20$2a1e54d5@compaq> From: "Kees van der Weijden" To: Cc: "David Stevenson" References: <6FsfdzB22Yt8Ewm7@asimere.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:04:25 +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: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 3:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... > Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >On Thu, 11 Apr 2002, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > >> too late for 25B; UI to North. Tell her to bid 4S when it gets back to > >> her :) > > > >That's what I thought until the chair of the Dutch competitions committee > >(quoting the chair of the WBFLC) told me that when it is too late to apply > >25B, 4S should be regarded as a bid out of turn and the TD should apply > >31B here. This bars north from the auction. > > > >For this specific case, it probably doesn't matter (north will pass > >anyway). However, it does sound strange to me to apply 31B here: south > >never intended to bid out of turn, she just wanted to change her call. > > > >Comments? > > She did not call, did she? So it is not a call out of turn. A > statement of intent is not a call, surely. > > Did she take the cards out of the bidding box? No? A call is made > when they are taken out of the bidding box in every jurisdiction that I > know except the ACBL, who have changed that recently. With all technical irregularities (insufficient bid, BOOT, shown card etc) there is a penalty to equalize the UI, so that after the penalty both OP and NOP are 'free' in there play (72A4/5), except some 16C2 cases (UI from the opps). It must be so, because 1) the play must go on immediately, and 2) the UI isn't to ignore. The partner has done that bid, or has shown that card. The laws are designed for non-intentional irregularities. And I see no difference between either a second bid with cards either or a second bid said or suggested (director's presence doesn't matter and may not be an excuse for UI-distribution). THE UI HAS REACHED PARTNER is the only thing does matter. Making difference between UI of the same kind is inconsequent. In fact you change the rules because you think the rules are to rigorous. You may not do so (72A6). Therefore MUST be either 25 or 31 in charge. If that isn't possible, than the Laws are insufficient. Kees van der Weijden, the Netherlands. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 12 23:55:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CDtNA01040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:55:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CDtHH01036 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:55:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA12601; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:42:56 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA21617; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:44:05 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020412154435.00a5e7d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:49:30 +0200 To: "David J. Grabiner" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ficticious Example Based on Fact In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020411205922.01628528@mail.comcast.net> References: <001401c1e194$3777ebe0$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 21:09 11/04/2002 -0400, David J. Grabiner wrote: >At 08:05 AM 4/12/2002 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >>Hi >> >>(2d*) 2nt** (p) 3c*** >>( p ) 3h**** ... >> >>* 2d is alerted and shows any unbal 2 or 3 suited, 11-15, no five-card major >> >>** 2nt was alerted >> >>*** 3c was very slow and unalerted >> >>**** the 2nt bidder has axxxx kjxxx x xx >> >>Is there any justification in moving from a natural 3c when you (think you) >>have shown 5-5 in the majors with 2nt? > >No. You have exactly what partner expects you to have, and you even have >an extra club. 3H >here would show at least six hearts, say Axxxx KJxxxx xx -. > >>As the table director, how do you handle this type of situation? Is it >>simply a case of adjusting to 3c down a bunch? > >I think it is a proper adjustment, but it has to be based on the 2NT >bidder making a bid that could have been suggested by UI. The alert of >2NT does not suggest anything (since 2NT for the minors and 2NT for the >majors are apparently both alertable), but the very slow pass is. It >indicates that partner was considering some other call, and it appears to >have suggested to this player that partner forgot the agreement. The 3C >call itself does not suggest that partner forgot; he could have xx Ax Kxx >QJTxxx. AG : IBTD. I'd say it's quite probable that, on 2NT "majors", presumably wide-ranged, 3C is an artificial enquiry. Then perhaps the overcaller forgot to alert 3C -which is a minor infraction-, but, slow 3C or not, he has to make his system bid over 3C. It could well happen to be 3H. Anyway, if the 3C bid is forcing, as it would be in most systems, you could hardly demand that overcaller pass because of the tempo. After all, partner didn't tell him how he interpreted the 2NT bid. >>The 3c bidder has 4 small and has apparently given a preference based on >>believing 2nt was for the minors. AG : agreed, but if the overcaller remembers his system (and everything suggest he does), we must let him make the systemic bid over 3C. 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 Apr 13 00:30:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CETq601113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CETFH01062 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:16 +1000 (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 16w1sH-000GkK-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 11:49:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... References: <20020411210301-R01050000-81F53080-4D8F-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <006901c1e1f3$ea06c7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <006901c1e1f3$ea06c7e0$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'm sorry, Sven, but I just can't buy it. She did *not* make a call, much >less >> a call out of turn. Law 31B does not apply. She described what she wanted >to do >> at her previous turn, and that's all she did. > >Technically I agree with all those who objected to my logic. > >But if accepting those objections: Please consider a player >who says (not using bid boxes) at his turn to call: >I would actually preferred to start with 1 spade, but no - 1Club! He has bid 1C after an unfortunate utterance that will lead to UI and probably procedural penalties. >Has he made one or two calls? Is it only UI to partner or is it >a change of call? If you pretend to be consistent you should >say that he didn't bid 1 spade at all, he just mentioned he would >have preferred to do so. He did not bid 1S. >I would rule that for all practical purposes the correct ruling must >be to apply Law 25 (change of mind, not inadvertent change of call). Why? He did not bid 1S. >Incidently, the sloppy player who reluctantly says "I think I shall pass" >hasn't technically made any call yet, he has only indicated what he >(probably) is going to call, so if his LHO makes a call without >awaiting a final decision might very well (with the above logic) >face a claim of calling out of turn! I think we should adopt some common sense when ruling. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:30:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CETpT01112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CETFH01065 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:16 +1000 (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 16w1sH-000GkM-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:23:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <000d01c1d6f6$d7e6a380$0a01a8c0@davishi> 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 Zvi Shilon writes >After 1h - 2h, I suppose that west always bids 4h with a bad minimum >opening. What he does depends on the situation and what is legal. If it is legal to bid 4H here, why should he not? The fact that he would not in a different situation seems irrelevant. ------------------------- Israel Erdnbaum writes >The insufficient bid gave the information that W has a 1H opening bid , if >this isn't UI what is ? It is not UI because L27B1A says it isn't in effect. Ok, technically it says the UI Law does not apply. >Read please Law 27 B1(b) L27B1B replaces the UI Law for the purposes of insufficient bids. Now we need to know what the consequences of this Law are. >The TD should have warned W about the consequences of bidding 2H ,but we >haven't been asked about that. Sure - but we have not yet decided what the consequences are. Until we do we cannot decide what the TD should have advised. ------------------------- Sven Pran writes >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). Unjustified? When is the good result unjustified? ------------------------- Israel Erdnbaum writes >As I pointed out in my post to Zvi the real problem is why W was not warned >by the TD . Who says he wasn't? Until you work out what is legal and what is not you cannot say what warning should be given. The original post says > South does not accept the 1H, the TD applies the relevant Law, and the >bidding proceeds: which sounds to me as though the TD has done what he should have. ------------------------- Hirsch Davis writes >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. Now we are getting somewhere. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:30:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CETvj01117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CETNH01089 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:24 +1000 (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 16w1sP-000GkM-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:14 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:00:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <3CA4650C.9010203@village.uunet.be> <001d01c1d749$44bff5e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <001d01c1d749$44bff5e0$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: "Jeremy Rickard" >> 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? Sure - and no competent Director would *ever* ask that at the table in front of partner. Please just answer the question - it is difficult enough without all the assumptions of stupidity by the TD. OK, add the following line to the original posting, if you insist. "The TD did his job correctly and competently." -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:30:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CETw001118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CETNH01091 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:24 +1000 (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 16w1sP-000GkL-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:14 +0100 Message-ID: <5nkA5XGZ2tt8Ew0X@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:14:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Sven Pran writes >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. It was certainly not obvious in the posting I made. Only an incompetent TD would ask the question at the table. If it had been obvious that East had overlooked the opening bid from his mannerisms then that would be UI and we would adjust under L16 or L73. It seems a pity that I ask a question which obviously needs an answer and it is assumed by some that something different has happened. ---------- John (MadDog) Probst writes >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. Show me where, please. -------- Israel Erdnbaum writes >If it goes 1H -P- 1H it's usually very clear what has happened. Yes. Either [1] East did not see the opening bid, or [2] he thought the opening bid was 1C or 1D, or [3] he meant to bid something higher, eg 2H. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:31:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CETwk01120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CETGH01066 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:16 +1000 (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 16w1sH-000GkL-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:03 +0100 Message-ID: <+3VBtrCc+st8Ewk+@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:14:20 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 John (MadDog) Probst writes >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. Having set this problem I have been away for some time. I did spend a couple of days at home, but the sight of 219 replies persuaded me to read them when I had some time free and read them carefully. I shall answer them as I go along. Please accept my apologies if this means that some of my answers have been made by other people further into the thread. For your information, Nanki Poo is having an x-ray at the time I write this. He wasn't fed after 10 pm last night, so howled all night [have you tried *not* feeding a Siamese?]. He then had a 20 minute car journey: he hates the car, and this is the longest journey since we got him. It is not meant to be serious, but naturally I am worried, especially as pet x-rays involve sedatives, which are not 100% safe. Anyway, this seems a good time to attack this thread. >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. Does this mean you know the answer to the question, or you are just blowing smoke because you do not know the answer? Until you know the answer to the question you cannot claim it is TD error because you do not know what the TD should have advised. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:31:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CEU1i01121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:30:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CETRH01100 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:29 +1000 (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 16w1sY-000GkK-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:36:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020331163802.00b97870@pop.starpower.net> <00ae01c1d964$aec222c0$6f4c003e@erdnbaum> <4.3.2.7.0.20020401163643.00ab6260@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020401163643.00ab6260@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 >I feel a bit perplexed that my meaning wasn't obvious. > >Responder raised 1H to 2H. > >Opener knows from the table action that responder has an opening bid. Table action? Unless the opponents have told him what partner has, then you are back to a simple UI case since the table action from pd is UI. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:31:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CETwl01119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CETOH01095 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:25 +1000 (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 16w1sQ-000GkN-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:33:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA5F467.C540FB67@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: <3CA5F467.C540FB67@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 >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. This is one of the single most important posts here in my view. Is this what L27B2 means, or isn't it? I will tell you that I posted the thread when I discovered that certain top French TDs assume this is the meaning of L27B2, ie that you do not adjust if the players reach a contract they likely would have reached if one of them had not made an insufficient bid, even though they assumed the information from the insufficient bid. Now I think the British view would be to adjust if they had used the information from the insufficient bid to get there. However, there are further difficulties with that approach, so I shall read a few more posts before getting into that. So, please, forget about incompetent TDs, which make this a very dull problem, especially as nearly all the posts who have assumed incompetent TDs have then given the wrong answer! We have now reached a fork in the road: is the French view correct? Is a player fully allowed to use the information from the insufficient bid, and we shall only adjust if we judge he will not get to that contract if there was no insufficient bid at all? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:31:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CEU2Y01122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:30:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CETLH01080 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:23 +1000 (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 16w1sP-000GkP-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:12 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:05:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <001801c1da12$95500380$5135e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001801c1da12$95500380$5135e150@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 >+=+ In the case cited he does not know this from the insufficient >bid since he does not know from that alone whether East was >opening, responding to what he though West had bid, or >overcalling what he thought RHO had opened. This was cleared >up by the mannerisms and what was said. +=+ If this had been the case then suddenly the hand loses interest: as soon as mannerisms and what was said show an opening hand with East L16 and L73 kick in. for the original question to have any interest you must assume there was no UI from East. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:31:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CETqj01114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CETKH01073 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:21 +1000 (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 16w1sP-000GkK-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:11 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:54:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <86C9C6EDBC4ED511A2CD006008F6D8A8016AADB9@j9exch3.je.jfcom.mil> In-Reply-To: <86C9C6EDBC4ED511A2CD006008F6D8A8016AADB9@j9exch3.je.jfcom.mil> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Lane Joseph H. J9C642 writes >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. Unfortunately, that is *not* what the Laws say! >West was unethical (apparently, we cannot see his hand) in that he used >unauthorized information to bid 4H. It is never unethical to use UI, unless you know you are doing wrong and you do it deliberately. here, there is no UI so we certainly cannot say West was unethical. >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. Committee? What happened to the Director? Why should East not bid 2H? -------------------- Ed Reppert writes >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. There is *no* suggestion in the posting that the TD was remiss. Since BLML cannot agree on what the position actually is what do you suggest the TD should say? Anyway, I think you should not assume the TD did anything wrong. -------------------- Israel Erdnbaum writes >The TD should have advised E. Advised him what? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:31:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CETrp01116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CETFH01063 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:16 +1000 (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 16w1sH-000GkP-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:06 +0100 Message-ID: <5XmAV3ESett8Ew3s@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:48:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203301910.OAA24264@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200203301910.OAA24264@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 >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 am not sure this is a good L27B2 case, and it certainly does not need to be, being a perfect L72B1 case. If he has a club suit it is a jolly good way of bidding it naturally! ----------------------- Sven Pran writes >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. But surely it is in Steve's example: 1C on your right, 2C would be artificial, so with a club suit bid 1C and correct to 2C after the TD tells you what to do. That's L72B1! ----------------------- Grattan Endicott writes > In the case put West has used the 'knowledge' >that East has an opening bid. The law question to >resolve is whether that knowledge lies within the >limits of what is allowed by 27B1(a), the judgement >to be made is whether NS are damaged by West's >use of it. Quite simple, really, let's start again. :-)) Of course West does not know that East has an opening bid. Perhaps his 1H was a response to 1C. Given that additional question, you are right: now what are the answers? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:31:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CETqM01115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CETFH01064 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:29:16 +1000 (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 16w1sH-000GkN-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:05 +0100 Message-ID: <8X2BVTESStt8Ew3q@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:35:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <004501c1d701$8a7a6220$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <004501c1d701$8a7a6220$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 g3CETLH01071 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >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. Until we know what the solution is I think assuming TD error is a bit presumptuous. I know of three solutions to this problem - when I set it I had only thought of two - so I shall see how this thread develops. If the other two solutions apart from yours are not mentioned I shall of course write about them as I go through the thread. ------------------------- Rui Marques writes >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 thatīs it. "Showing opening strength" is THE >trigger for Law 27B1b. I find that when there is an insufficient bid at the table there are a number of reasons for it. When an insufficient bid is discussed people *always* assume it was meant as an opening bid. One of the questions from the English club TD course was concerning 2S 1NT corrected to 2NT Our view was that partner has no reason to know whether the original 1NT bid showed 12-14 as an opening, 15-17 as an overcall over 1S or 16-19 as an intended 2NT bid over 2S. When insufficient bids are discussed in print it is always assumed this shows 12-14, but I do not know why. Of course, the insufficient bidder often says something unfortunate [like "OH MY GAWD - I did not see the opening bid"]. But that case is simple enough because the remark is UI, and now we can use L16 and L73 to deal with it. But in the stated case and others of its type why should the partner of the insufficient bidder [POTIB?] assume his partner has an opening bid? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Some emails lost: anyone who wrote to me on 9th April should re-send For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 00:57:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CEv2o01200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:57:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CEuuH01196 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:56:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id QAA16632; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:42:59 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA25344; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:45:36 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020412164034.00a5dbe0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:51:01 +0200 To: "Kees van der Weijden" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Cc: "David Stevenson" In-Reply-To: <009a01c1e222$c9ee7d20$2a1e54d5@compaq> References: <6FsfdzB22Yt8Ewm7@asimere.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:04 12/04/2002 +0200, Kees van der Weijden wrote: >The laws are designed for non-intentional irregularities. And I see no >difference between either a second bid with cards either or a second bid >said or suggested (director's presence doesn't matter and may not be an >excuse for UI-distribution). THE UI HAS REACHED PARTNER is the only thing >does matter. > >Making difference between UI of the same kind is inconsequent. In fact you >change the rules because you think the rules are to rigorous. You may not do >so (72A6). > >Therefore MUST be either 25 or 31 in charge. If that isn't possible, than >the Laws are insufficient. AG : they aren't. Assume L31 is irrelevant (it seems right here, according to the player's spontaneous comment). The question (not quite answered up to now) is whether the comment represents an attempt at changing the declaration. If the answer is yes, L25 is indeed in charge. If we discard L25A (there seems to be a consensus here), we turn to L25B, which tells us it is too late. The only problem remaining is the comment. If the answer is no, then the only problem remaining is the outrageous comment. So, you see, in both cases we can rest on L73C, L74B2, L74C2 and L16A. I feel we are well equipped. In particular, L26A will not apply, because there was no retracted bid, but L16A2 might still apply to partner's decisions, especially the lead. Of course, it is quite probable that the opener's side will end playing 4S, after which UI is voided. 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 Apr 13 01:37:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CFbIU01223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:37:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3CFbDH01219 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:37:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d371.iae.nl [212.61.5.117]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id CA3D6214DC for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:26:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <009501c1e236$274db540$46053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Penalty cards or UI Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:52:51 +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 After the final pass a player informs the opponents that his call of 3 clubs was not alerted by partner. His LHO now summons the director and says loudly to him: "With my ace and queen I would have doubled if I had known that" Question: Is this remark UI or are the ace and queen penalty cards? (Law 49: defender names a card). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 02:49:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CGn3101256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 02:49:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CGmvH01252 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 02:48:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1356.bb.online.no [80.212.213.76]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA00754 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 18:37:39 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002501c1e240$5c099240$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA5F467.C540FB67@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 18:37:34 +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: "David Stevenson" > This is one of the single most important posts here in my view. Is > this what L27B2 means, or isn't it? I will tell you that I posted the > thread when I discovered that certain top French TDs assume this is the > meaning of L27B2, ie that you do not adjust if the players reach a > contract they likely would have reached if one of them had not made an > insufficient bid, even though they assumed the information from the > insufficient bid. > > Now I think the British view would be to adjust if they had used the > information from the insufficient bid to get there. However, there are > further difficulties with that approach, so I shall read a few more > posts before getting into that. ...... > We have now reached a fork in the road: is the French view correct? > Is a player fully allowed to use the information from the insufficient > bid, and we shall only adjust if we judge he will not get to that > contract if there was no insufficient bid at all? Do I understand you correct David? If the case comes under Law27B2 there cannot be any question of using information from the insufficient bid? The only player on the offending side who may still participate in the auction with anything else than pass has not received any unauthorized information, he is the one who in case has delivered it. Can there ever be any case of adjusting the result after L27B2? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 03:01:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CH0hV01283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:00:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CH0aH01279 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:00:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1356.bb.online.no [80.212.213.76]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA08203; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 18:49:22 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003101c1e241$ff2ee6e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" References: <009501c1e236$274db540$46053dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards or UI Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 18:49:22 +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: "Ben Schelen" > After the final pass a player informs the opponents that his call of 3 clubs > was not alerted by partner. His LHO now summons the director and says loudly > to him: "With my ace and queen I would have doubled if I had known that" > Question: Is this remark UI or are the ace and queen penalty cards? (Law 49: > defender names a card). Can we assume beyond doubt that his remark referred to the Ace and Queen in that particular suit? If so he has clearly named the cards and law 49 applies. If not, he has given the UI that he has an Ace and a Queen of some (unspecified) suit, but as this is not sufficient to identify the cards completely I would not automatically apply Law 49 in that 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 Sat Apr 13 03:25:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CHPge01328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:25:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CHPaH01324 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:25:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1356.bb.online.no [80.212.213.76]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA20724; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:14:23 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004401c1e245$7dc88a80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Sven Pran" , References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA5F467.C540FB67@t-online.de> <002501c1e240$5c099240$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:14:22 +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: "Sven Pran" > From: "David Stevenson" > > This is one of the single most important posts here in my view. Is > > this what L27B2 means, or isn't it? I will tell you that I posted the > > thread when I discovered that certain top French TDs assume this is the > > meaning of L27B2, ie that you do not adjust if the players reach a > > contract they likely would have reached if one of them had not made an > > insufficient bid, even though they assumed the information from the > > insufficient bid. > > > > Now I think the British view would be to adjust if they had used the > > information from the insufficient bid to get there. However, there are > > further difficulties with that approach, so I shall read a few more > > posts before getting into that. > ...... > > We have now reached a fork in the road: is the French view correct? > > Is a player fully allowed to use the information from the insufficient > > bid, and we shall only adjust if we judge he will not get to that > > contract if there was no insufficient bid at all? > > Do I understand you correct David? > If the case comes under Law27B2 there cannot be any question of using > information from the insufficient bid? The only player on the offending side > who may still participate in the auction with anything else than pass has > not received any unauthorized information, he is the one who in case has > delivered it. > > Can there ever be any case of adjusting the result after L27B2? I should have added: Except of course when Law23 applies! > > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 03:41:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CHfjh01345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:41:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CHfeH01341 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 03:41:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13775; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:30:46 -0700 Message-Id: <200204121730.KAA13775@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards or UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:52:51 +0200." <009501c1e236$274db540$46053dd4@b0e7g1> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:30:47 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen wrote: > After the final pass a player informs the opponents that his call of 3 clubs > was not alerted by partner. His LHO now summons the director and says loudly > to him: "With my ace and queen I would have doubled if I had known that" > Question: Is this remark UI or are the ace and queen penalty cards? (Law 49: > defender names a card). I'm not sure whether Law 49 applies, since I'm not sure whether there's a defender yet! The auction period is not over, and no opening lead has been faced, so according to the Definitions, there is not yet a declarer. However, the Definitions define "defender" thus: An opponent of (presumed) declarer. I'm not sure what effect the word "presumed" is here. The problem is that because of the failure to alert, the last pass made by the opponents can be retracted (L21B1), with the result that NO's may become the declaring side instead of the defenders. In any case, I'm inclined to rule that L49 does not apply but L24 does ("Card exposed or led during auction"). The problem with this is that L24 appears to apply only if the face of a card can be seen by a player's partner, not if the card is actually named. However, I'm willing to stretch a little bit and consider a named card to be exposed for this purpose. The effect is the same, anyway---a player knows what card is in partner's hand---and so I think the same Law ought to apply. I expect I'll get shot down for this stretch, however. In any case, I'd like the Lawmakers to consider amending L24 so that it applies to cards named vocally as well as to exposed cards. Assuming that L24 should be applied, then: Because of the MI, the opponents have the opportunity to retract their final call, BUT if this call is retracted, the ace and queen of clubs must be left face up on the table, and L24C applies, so that Loudmouth's partner must pass at his next turn. Assuming Loudmouth doesn't become declarer, then declarer has the option of treating the ace and queen of clubs as penalty cards. We'll also have to rule on a possible adjustment due to MI. If there was MI, I would rule that we should apply L12C2 to determine what would have happened if the MI had not occurred, BUT WITH THE ACE AND QUEEN OF CLUBS STILL AS EXPOSED CARDS, since Loudmouth's improper remark was a consequence of his own stupidity and not a consequence of the MI infraction. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 04:51:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CIod301374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:50:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CIoXH01370 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 04:50:34 +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 g3CIdMM09234; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:39:23 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:39:26 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Bridge Laws cc: Peter Mollemet X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00d901c1e1e6$e6006dc0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: <20020412143927-R01050000-16F53980-4E23-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/11/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >How did you find this? Anyway, it's the one that used to be on the ACBL >website, no longer applicable. It does not refer to the current CC. I guess Peter needs to be informed of that. So I've copied him. :-) Peter, we're talking about the "how to fill out the convention card page", which is at http://acbl.lunaweb.net/templates/acbl/conventioncards/convcard/how2fill.htm. That link is on the CC info page found from the "convention cards" link in the quick links popup. We think the page needs to be updated to reflect the current card. >>I suspect you have some old bookmarks. The current ACBL Regulations >>page has only four items on it: links labelled, respectively, "skip bid >>warnings", "recorder", "disciplinary", and "bid box rules". It's at >>http://www.acbl.org/details.asp?id=1832&PID=9687 > >Oh yeah? Try http://www.acbl.org/regulations/regulate.htm > >The trouble is, I can't find a path to this from the home page (used a >Google website search), but it has lots of regulations. Must be a >"fossil," but the regs appear to be current. I suspect that the web site is still in a state of transition ‹ and that the old web site is still available, if you know how to get to it. IAC, this page's compilation of regs would go a long way towards satisfying my complaint if all those links were available on the current regulations page (assuming the information on the regs at those links is current :). >By now it seems to me you are the only person who can could come up with >a comprehensive list of regulations, and I urge you to do so. Well, I'll give it a try‹although I have a feeling there are some regulations out there I don't know about. :-) 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 Apr 13 05:30:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CJTpK01399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:29:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3CJTkH01395 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:29:46 +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 PAA29676 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA19225 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:18:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204121918.PAA19225@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 > 1C on your right, 2C would be > artificial, so with a club suit bid 1C and correct to 2C after the TD > tells you what to do. That's L72B1! No problem now, as David says. I'm curious how people would have ruled this under the 1987 Laws, when 72B1 did not exist and partner would not even have been barred. I vote for 27B1b. If not that, then what? Surely we can't allow a two-way 2C bid: artificial if bid directly but natural if preceded by an IB. > Is a player fully allowed to use the information from the insufficient > bid, and we shall only adjust if we judge he will not get to that > contract if there was no insufficient bid at all? And if we do adjust, what is the "irregularity" for purposes of L12C2? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 06:12:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CKAIi01426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 06:10:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3CK5OH01420 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 06:10:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3CJrtM26203 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:53:55 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:33:02 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards or UI To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <200204121730.KAA13775@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <20020412155359-R01050000-807A4580-4E2D-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5 (Blindsider) Demo Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/12/02, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Ben Schelen wrote: > >> After the final pass a player informs the opponents that his call of 3 clubs >> was not alerted by partner. His LHO now summons the director and says loudly >> to him: "With my ace and queen I would have doubled if I had known that" >> Question: Is this remark UI or are the ace and queen penalty cards? (Law 49: >> defender names a card). > >I'm not sure whether Law 49 applies, since I'm not sure whether >there's a defender yet! The auction period is not over, That last is the key, I think. [snip] >The problem is that because of the failure to alert, the last pass >made by the opponents can be retracted (L21B1), with the result that >NO's may become the declaring side instead of the defenders. Yes, complainant's last pass can be retracted, but he has two pieces of UI: that partner would like to have doubled 3C, and that he has an ace and a queen (probably of clubs). Pass is an LA (he already passed, didn't he?) and so is double. But double is suggested by the UI, so he can't do that. He can *bid* something (so long as it's not suggested by the UI) but what does that get him? It might well result in a bad score (and might also be illegal; I haven't considered that question). So I think this is a null problem. >In any case, I'm inclined to rule that L49 does not apply but L24 >does ("Card exposed or led during auction"). The problem with this is >that L24 appears to apply only if the face of a card can be seen by a >player's partner, not if the card is actually named. However, I'm >willing to stretch a little bit and consider a named card to be >exposed for this purpose. I'm not. :-) >In any case, I'd like the Lawmakers to consider amending L24 >so that it applies to cards named vocally as well as to exposed >cards. Hm. Not sure about this. IAC, that has nothing to do with dealing with this problem *now*. :-) In another message, Sven Pran opined: >Can we assume beyond doubt that his remark referred to the Ace >and Queen in that particular suit? If so he has clearly named the >cards and law 49 applies. > >If not, he has given the UI that he has an Ace and a Queen of some >(unspecified) suit, but as this is not sufficient to identify the cards >completely I would not automatically apply Law 49 in that case. Here's my take: Law 49 applies during the play. Play has not yet started (see Law 41). Therefore, Law 49 does not apply. Law 24 would apply, since we are still in the auction, but it cannot, because it requires the card be physically placed in a position where his partner could see it. Now, it is unclear from the original post whether 3C is the final contract, but assuming it is, 3C bidder's LHO was deprived of an opportunity to call with all pertinent information by the MI in bidder's partner's failure to alert. Law 21 says "Until the end of the auction period (see Law 17E), a player may, without penalty, change a call when it is probable that he made the call as a result of misinformation given to him by an opponent (failure to alert promptly to a conventional call or special understanding, where such alert is required by the sponsoring organization, is deemed misinformation), provided that his partner has not subsequently called." Complainant's partner has called, therefore it is too late to apply this law for him. We could let his partner change his pass, but see my earlier argument regarding that possibility. I think it's unlikely he'll change it. Still, complainant wanted to change his call, and it's too late for him. Law 21B3 says "When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score (Law 40C may apply)." Can the Director award an adjusted score *now*? That depends. Law 12A2: "The Director may award an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see Law 88)." I think normal play of this board is still possible, so no, not yet. Now we look at complainant's extraneous comment. It seems to fit Law 16A ("After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information."), and I believe the TD should explain to complainant's partner his obligations under that law, and allow play to continue, making his final ruling under Law 16A2 after play is concluded (assuming there are no further problems :). If the final contract wasn't 3C, then I'd want to know what the rest of the auction was. :-) 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 Apr 13 06:37:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CKasU01447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 06:36:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CKanH01443 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 06:36:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15532; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:25:55 -0700 Message-Id: <200204122025.NAA15532@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards or UI In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:33:02 EDT." <20020412155359-R01050000-807A4580-4E2D-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:25:56 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > >I'm not sure whether Law 49 applies, since I'm not sure whether > >there's a defender yet! The auction period is not over, > > That last is the key, I think. > > [snip] > > >The problem is that because of the failure to alert, the last pass > >made by the opponents can be retracted (L21B1), with the result that > >NO's may become the declaring side instead of the defenders. > > Yes, complainant's last pass can be retracted, but he has two pieces > of UI: that > partner would like to have doubled 3C Actually, we don't know whether the player who wanted to double 3C was the one who made the last pass, or the partner of the one who made the last pass. It would have helped if an auction had been given. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 06:59:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CKxI101467 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 06:59:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CKxDH01463 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 06:59:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16w7xl-0007Iy-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:48:05 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020412163921.00af8460@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:48:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: <5nkA5XGZ2tt8Ew0X@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$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 09:14 AM 4/12/02, David wrote: >Israel Erdnbaum writes > >If it goes 1H -P- 1H it's usually very clear what has happened. > > Yes. Either > >[1] East did not see the opening bid, or >[2] he thought the opening bid was 1C or 1D, or >[3] he meant to bid something higher, eg 2H. I think Israel is right. When when it goes 1H-P-1H in a BLML post, any of the three possibilities listed by David might apply. But in real life, when a TD is called to a real table with live players at it, short of showing up at table-side wearing blinders and earplugs he will know which is the actual case 99.9% of the time. When they start babbling at you, you just can't say, "Stop, I don't want to hear it," fast enough for it to sink in before they've finished talking -- if ever. ...at least below the top levels, which is where my directing experience lies. 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 Apr 13 07:06:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CL5wr01486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:05:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CL5rH01482 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:05:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1267.bb.online.no [80.212.212.243]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA05766 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:54:40 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002c01c1e264$43a24700$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20020412155359-R01050000-807A4580-4E2D-11D6-9536-94866448B017-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards or UI Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:54:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" I could hit myself for failing to remember that we are still within the auction period. > >I'm not sure whether Law 49 applies, since I'm not sure whether > >there's a defender yet! The auction period is not over, > > That last is the key, I think. Exactly ..... > >In any case, I'm inclined to rule that L49 does not apply but L24 > >does ("Card exposed or led during auction"). The problem with this is > >that L24 appears to apply only if the face of a card can be seen by a > >player's partner, not if the card is actually named. And I am almost willing to take any bet this is an oversight by the laws committee. This also tells me that as soon as possible we should have a major revision of the laws by moving much stuff from elsewhere in the laws to Chapter 1: Definitions. Today Exposed cards are "defined" in both law 24 and in law 49, and the two definitions differ in a way that cannot be justified solely from one of the laws applying to the auction while the other applies to the play period. I happened to have the laws from 1935 at hand and found that the chapter "Definitions" indeed included "Exposed card" at that time. At that time Exposed was just exposed, whether visually or verbally. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 07:09:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CL9VC01498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:09:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CL9PH01494 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:09:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-18.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.18] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16w87e-0001e7-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:58:18 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020412165516.00affb50@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:58:23 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid In-Reply-To: References: <3CA5F467.C540FB67@t-online.de> <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA5F467.C540FB67@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 09:33 AM 4/12/02, David wrote: > We have now reached a fork in the road: is the French view correct? >Is a player fully allowed to use the information from the insufficient >bid, and we shall only adjust if we judge he will not get to that >contract if there was no insufficient bid at all? After reading both TFLB and the thread, I'd say yes -- or should that be oui? But allow me to pick a small nit; that should be "if we judge it at all likely that he might not" rather than "if we judge he will not". Benefit of the doubt to the NOS and all that. 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 Apr 13 07:37:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CLbNo01516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:37:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com ([207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3CLbFH01512 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:37:19 +1000 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:30:30 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21E1@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'Ed Reppert '" , "'Bridge Laws '" Subject: RE: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:30:30 -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 don't see how L31B applies. The mention of 4S certainly creates UI, but I don't see it as making a bid. -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran To: Ed Reppert; Bridge Laws Sent: 4/11/02 5:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... From: "Ed Reppert" > Wait a minute. South called the TD, and when he arrived, said to him "I just > passed, but I really wanted to bid 4S". Granted she shouldn't have blurted out > what she wanted to do, but how does that make it a call out of turn? She wasn't > making a call, she was explaining to the TD why she called him. And in a way which automatically invokes Law31B unless the application of law25A is granted. But there is really no harm to the offender: Although her partner now must pass whenever it is his(her?) turn to call for the rest of that auction she is perfectly free to bid 4S on her next turn to call. However, if she doesn't make such a bid in spades and thereafter becomes a defender then law26 will apply. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 07:57:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CLutb01533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:56:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from exch01.minfod.com ([207.227.70.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3CLuoH01529 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 07:56:51 +1000 (EST) Received: by al21.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:50:08 -0500 Message-ID: <7159715E6FDBD511B5460050DA6388BD21E2@al21.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'Bridge Laws '" Subject: RE: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:50:07 -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 The comment to the director that "I just passed, but I really wanted to bid 4S" is unfortunate, but I hear occasionally hear comments to directors that contain too much information (especially in lower-level games). The mention of 4S was most lilely not an attemt to convey UI to partner, just to explain to the director. Another common example is "My 1S bid is insufficient -- I didn't see my partners 1N opener." The player is just trying to help the director. On the other hand, a statement like "I would actually preferred to start with 1 spade, but no - 1 Club!" seems to intentionally convey extra information. I have never heard such a comment. As a director I would deal with the first offense with a severe warning and probably a player memo. Additional such offenses would find me going to the Conduct Committee and requesting probation / suspension / expulsion. -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran To: Bridge Laws Sent: 4/12/02 2:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... > I'm sorry, Sven, but I just can't buy it. She did *not* make a call, much less > a call out of turn. Law 31B does not apply. She described what she wanted to do > at her previous turn, and that's all she did. Technically I agree with all those who objected to my logic. But if accepting those objections: Please consider a player who says (not using bid boxes) at his turn to call: I would actually preferred to start with 1 spade, but no - 1Club! Has he made one or two calls? Is it only UI to partner or is it a change of call? If you pretend to be consistent you should say that he didn't bid 1 spade at all, he just mentioned he would have preferred to do so. I would rule that for all practical purposes the correct ruling must be to apply Law 25 (change of mind, not inadvertent change of call). Incidently, the sloppy player who reluctantly says "I think I shall pass" hasn't technically made any call yet, he has only indicated what he (probably) is going to call, so if his LHO makes a call without awaiting a final decision might very well (with the above logic) face a claim of calling out of turn! Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 09:14:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNEoh01689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:14:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3CNEjH01685 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:14:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.129.220] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wA4c-000PfZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:03:18 +0100 Message-ID: <003701c1e276$661bc9c0$e84be150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200204121918.PAA19225@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:02:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 8:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > From: David Stevenson > > 1C on your right, 2C would be > > artificial, so with a club suit bid 1C and correct to 2C after the TD > > tells you what to do. That's L72B1! > > No problem now, as David says. > > I'm curious how people would have ruled this under the 1987 Laws, > +=+ I quote: "Where a natural bid is corrected to the same denomination at the lowest legal sufficient level, and systemically would then be a conventional bid, all players at the table are entitled to be aware (and it is authorized information) that the bid is now still natural. If the players of the non-offending side suggest that the offending side has been enabled to obtain a result it would not otherwise obtain because it has been able to use a bid with a meaning not otherwise available to it, then the Director may decide in equity to award an adjusted score. This would constitute a ruling under Law 27B1(b)." [This EBL guidance had WBFLC assent.] ~ 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 Apr 13 09:20:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBA001667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CNACH01588 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:13 +1000 (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 16wA0T-000AKV-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:00:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <004d01c1da62$acf0d8c0$164c003e@erdnbaum> In-Reply-To: <004d01c1da62$acf0d8c0$164c003e@erdnbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum writes >Apparently Quite unbelievable E admitted that he thought he was opening. When? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 09:35:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNAEm01589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CN9xH01569 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:00 +1000 (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 16wA0I-000AKS-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:58:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:59:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient 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 Kooijman, A. writes >Thank you all for your well considered reactions. Though it was pairs I have >the feeling that my ethical standard, at least in this case, might be >questioned. ?????????? I thought you bid the 6S? But anyway, so long as a player attempts to be ethical in UI situations, that is good enough. An occasional misjudgement does not make him unethical. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 09:46:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBMA01673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CNAJH01608 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:20 +1000 (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 16wA0Y-000AKU-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:10 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:14:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was 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 Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >Brian Meadows wrote: > >> As far as online >> bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws concerning hesitations >> out of the window, and most people with any experience of online >> bridge realise that. > >Personally I have yet to realise it. "Thinking" hesitations are harder to >detect on-line - but far from impossible. Especially when someone types "thk". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 09:50:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBYq01677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNATH01629 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:30 +1000 (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 16wA0g-000AKV-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:20 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:08:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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> <3CA09449.FBDFCE16@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: <3CA09449.FBDFCE16@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 >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. For many people on this list it is their best chance to get something changed. I see no reason why they should not suggest change - after all I think every poster who posts with any frequency has made at least one suggestion for change sometime. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 09:51:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNpg701727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:51:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g3CNpXH01723 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:51:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.56.218] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wAe6-000I6X-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:39:59 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c1e27b$8b299ee0$da38e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200204121730.KAA13775@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards or UI Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 00:40:34 +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: "bridge-laws" Cc: Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 6:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty cards or UI > > The problem is that because of the failure to alert, > the last pass made by the opponents can be > retracted (L21B1), with the result that NO's may > become the declaring side instead of the defenders. > > In any case, I'm inclined to rule that L49 does not > apply but L24 does ("Card exposed or led during > auction"). The problem with this is that L24 appears > to apply only if the face of a card can be seen by a > player's partner, not if the card is actually named. +=+ I would be looking at Law 73B1. ~ 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 Apr 13 10:03:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBB901668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CNAGH01600 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:17 +1000 (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 16wA0Y-000AKS-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:08 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:13:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) References: <3CABFB16.1030907@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CABFB16.1030907@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >Now this is a typical blml reaction. > >Someone spots a law that has a strange conssequence, that no-one, in >over 20 years has ever spotted. > >Then we start discussing it for a long time, in an interesting manner. > >Then we continue discussing it for three times as long again. > >Then someone decides that this is a major problem, and he thinks it a >good idea to change the law so that this is solved. >Thereby changing a law that works perfectly well in 99.999% of the >case into an abomination that can hardly be called equitable. I agree totally with Herman. What am I saying? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:03:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBGZ01670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNAJH01609 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:20 +1000 (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 16wA0Y-000AKV-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:11 +0100 Message-ID: <3qLTKsMkWyt8EwEN@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:21:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <001e01c1da45$5e4eb6a0$b15f003e@erdnbaum> In-Reply-To: <001e01c1da45$5e4eb6a0$b15f003e@erdnbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum writes >You are *being told what's *ethical*.Till yesteday it wasn't ethical ,so >what happened? A parenthetical > from where? From the Mount of Sinai? Do you [and other BLML's]always do >what you *are told? >I can understand TD scared of the powers to be ,scared by AC. But as a >player Zvi don't you use your judgement about what's ethical? You are being >told* so you comply, and how do you feel about it? This is what I asked >Eric. Ethics are part of the laws, and have been so for some considerable time. Thus a player is ethical when he follows the ethics laid down in the Laws - and, yes, that does mean doing what he is told. It is not up to a player to decide what Laws to follow. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:05:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNAA901581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNA0H01571 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:00 +1000 (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 16wA0I-000AKU-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:58:52 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:08:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <3.0.6.32.20020329211544.011c5d00@pop.ihug.com.au> <00be01c1d70c$4232f620$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3.0.6.32.20020329215627.010d7e90@pop.ihug.com.au> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20020329215627.010d7e90@pop.ihug.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso writes >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". Naturally he did not ask any questions of East at the table. But when I said he applies the relevant law I did not mean that he did his job carelessly and incompetently anyway. To say what he did do we need to know what the answer to the substantive question is. The posts so far have been split between those who answer the substantive question, and those who assume TD error. When we know the answer to the substantive question, you may assume that the TD gave the correct advice. Until we know the answer how can the poor TD get it right? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:15:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBer01680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNARH01628 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:29 +1000 (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 16wA0g-000AKU-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:19 +0100 Message-ID: <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:06:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >----- 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. It is not plainly illegal nor unreasonable. Of course it has been discussed here and on RGB ad nauseam. L40D allows the regulation of conventions. Allowing conventions to be played "only if they are not psyched" is a regulation of conventions. Yes, I know what you are going to say: L40A permits it anyway. No, it does not, because you are playing an illegal convention if you psyche it. It is plainly legal to restrict psyches of conventional bids under L40D. Whether reasonable I have no comment. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:17:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNACT01583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CN9xH01570 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:00 +1000 (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 16wA0I-000AKT-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:58:51 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 16:06:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... References: <6FsfdzB22Yt8Ewm7@asimere.com> <009a01c1e222$c9ee7d20$2a1e54d5@compaq> In-Reply-To: <009a01c1e222$c9ee7d20$2a1e54d5@compaq> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kees van der Weijden writes >With all technical irregularities (insufficient bid, BOOT, shown card etc) >there is a penalty to equalize the UI, so that after the penalty both OP and >NOP are 'free' in there play (72A4/5), except some 16C2 cases (UI from the >opps). It must be so, because 1) the play must go on immediately, and 2) the >UI isn't to ignore. The partner has done that bid, or has shown that card. > >The laws are designed for non-intentional irregularities. And I see no >difference between either a second bid with cards either or a second bid >said or suggested (director's presence doesn't matter and may not be an >excuse for UI-distribution). THE UI HAS REACHED PARTNER is the only thing >does matter. > >Making difference between UI of the same kind is inconsequent. In fact you >change the rules because you think the rules are to rigorous. You may not do >so (72A6). > >Therefore MUST be either 25 or 31 in charge. If that isn't possible, than >the Laws are insufficient. If you say "I have a good hand" that is UI to partner. It is not a call but is dealt with under Laws 16 and 73. The same applies here. No call was made, so L31 does not apply. But the laws are sufficient because there is a Law to deal with this situation. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:20:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBmP01683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNAZH01642 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:37 +1000 (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 16wA0o-000AKS-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:26 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 21:39:30 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <20020401113905-R01050000-11FFD280-4565-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <002b01c1d9d1$a054f880$a644e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002b01c1d9d1$a054f880$a644e150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "Ed Reppert" >> Well and good. But is there no point to a hope >> that in most cases, good directors will make >> similar judgements? >+=+ The long correspondence has left them with > a wide field of choice. +=+ Oh, I do not think so. The judgement here is easy and obvious: the meaning of the Law is not. Once we are agreed on the meaning of the Law I would expect competent TDs to agree on this one. However, I am still waiting after reading over half the outstanding 200 messages to see a meaning ascribed by you, Grattan! -------------- Israel Erdnbaum writes >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. There was an article in Bridge Magazine, an English mag, about thirty years ago on how to show aces and kings in response to Blackwood. I leave the details to your imagination. In those days you could could correct a bid whether conventional or not. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:23:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNB6B01664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CNACH01587 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:13 +1000 (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 16wA0T-000AKW-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:39:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <000101c1d8ac$9322f200$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <3CA80EAE.3020901@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CA80EAE.3020901@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >Rui Marques wrote: >I'm sorry Rui, >> Here, with the correct procedure from the TD and no words spoken that >> may give rise to UI, I am 100% on the field of "no damage, score >> stands". >This won't stand. >"No words spoken that may give rise to UI". >You apparently make a distinction between a player sayiing nothing and >one saying "oh, I did not see your opening bid", making the bid AI, >but the words UI? Certainly. Remarks by a player that show the contents of his hand are UI to partner. >I doubt if that were the LC intention, since there is really no way >ever that a 1He bid, when insufficient, is not accompanied by some >gesture or anything which makes it clear what kind of misapprehension >the bidder is under. That's neither true nor relevant. Nowhere in the Laws does it say that you can tell partner your hand, and it is not UI if you happen to be making an insufficient bid at the same time. If your interpretation was correct then you could bid 1H P 1H and say "I have six spades to the ace-king, four diamonds to the seven, a heart void, and ace-king-ten of clubs". You would then correct 1H to 2H and smugly let pd pick the final contract after the TD explains that your 'utterance' is AI to pd. The situation referred to in L27B1A is a player making an insufficient bid. Anything else he does is not part of that. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:27:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBaK01678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNAXH01637 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:35 +1000 (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 16wA0o-000AKT-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:25 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:31:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <3CA2418A.855E2B0D@t-online.de> <200203280421.g2S4L3H11295@rgb.anu.edu.au> <4.3.2.7.0.20020328092548.00b823f0@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020328092548.00b823f0@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 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. In all places that I know on the internet, including various places that quote Netiquette rules, CAPITALS is considered shouting. *Bold* is shown by asterisks, and **very bold** is possible. _Underlining_ is shown by underscores before and after, but nothing I know shows italic. >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. Most people on the internet consider it rude to shout at other people, so it would be better to follow general Netiquette and use asterisks for stress. >Some internet forums have adopted the useful convention of using >capitals for BOLD, and using delimiting asterisks for *italic*. Very few, and not following the majority of Usenet cannot really be called 'useful'. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:27:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBOU01674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNAGH01595 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:17 +1000 (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 16wA0Y-000AKT-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:07:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was 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 richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >I suggest that the WBF Laws Committee, in its imminent >general review of the Laws, seriously consider amending >Law 27 to bar from the auction the partner of a >player who makes *any* (non-condoned) insufficient bid. It seems a bit like certain suggestions made about claims Laws, based on a few unfortunate exceptions: they do work most of the time. Most times there is an insufficient bid it is something like this 1H 1S 2C 2S 2D In practice the player eventually bids 3D after all the options are explained, bidding goes on from there, and everyone is happy. Now, in my experience, over 80% of insufficient bids are like that, with little dislocation. If we follow Richard's suggestion we shall have a lot more dislocation, and it seems unnecessary. What for, anyway? Because we had a problem with 1H P 1H ? But there is only a problem because we do not know the answer. Once we find a definitive answer to that another set of hands will no longer be a problem. No, let us allow correction to the minimum legal bid in the same denomination to continue, please. I believe players will much prefer it because they do not want more dislocation. >The current rule, which applies the bar to conventional >insufficient bids (or conventional corrections) only, >seems inadequate. > >My mooted change to Law 27 would also reduce the number >of times a TD would have to ask the can-of-worms question: >"What is a convention?" :-) There are other and better ways for the new Laws to sort that problem out. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:28:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBOh01675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNAKH01611 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:22 +1000 (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 16wA0Y-000AKW-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:11 +0100 Message-ID: <8KwRy6MKYyt8EwG8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:23:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) References: <200204042059.PAA08579@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8qspaugctpnjbum9g9fhhrlhs3isnf1qfo@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <8qspaugctpnjbum9g9fhhrlhs3isnf1qfo@4ax.com> 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 >On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:59:50 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: > >>> From: Brian Meadows >>> You *do* get lost packets across the internet >>[and other reasons omitted] >>... >>> As far as online >>> bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws concerning hesitations >>> out of the window, >> >>You seem to have refuted your own example. >> > >I don't think so. > >>If the Internet causes hesitations, then they do not come from partner, >>nor do they suggest one action over another. The Laws cope with this >>situation just fine; no need to toss them out the window. > >But how does a player determine whether the hesitation was a real >one by partner, and thus can carry UI, or was due to external >reasons, and thus carries no UI? If a player cannot tell whether his pd has given him UI then his pd has not given him UI. If you *know* pd has hesitated then do you really want a game where a player is allowed to take advantage? If you have no idea whether pd has hesitated then there is no problem because there is no UI. ---------------------------- Ben Schelen writes >The same happens when you play with one bidding box a table: it is much >cheaper, there are no insufficient bids and less calls out of turn. >Maybe there are more advantages but it is not according to the rules. Why not? The Laws do not require four bidding boxes, and local regs could easily be written to allow for one bidding box. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:35:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBlK01682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNAkH01658 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:48 +1000 (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 16wA0q-000AKV-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:37 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:30:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) References: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "Tim West-meads" < >> >> 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. You cannot be suggesting that local regs are not permitted in Olympic sports! All sports have overall rules and local rules, as do mindsports. Of course, whether the distinction as to which rules must be overall would be acceptable to the Olympic authorities is another matter, but certainly to presume no local regs are acceptable cannot be the case. Consider promotion and relegation in hockey leagues: I am sure the rules are not the same in Peshawar as in Seoul. Yet hockey is, I believe, an Olympic sport. ---------------- Tim West-meads writes >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. There is no evidence to suggest this. I really wonder where you are coming from. Like every other sport and mindsport the ease of communication means more people travel and talk together, and differences tend to reduce, not increase. Remember also that, while there may be a few people on BLML who do not like it, and some others, there is little evidence that the world of bridge wishes to get rid of its NCBOs. ---------------- -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:36:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBTE01676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CNAQH01626 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:28 +1000 (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 16wA0g-000AKS-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:46:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$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 >Thank you for making your point very well. I have no objection >if that shall be the rule, but I tried to give some cases where the >actual response alternatives, particularly to conventional calls, >might be important for LHO to know before he selects his call. >(We have had this discussion here already, but I don't think we >reached any result). Full disclosure does not mean that we should bring the game to a grinding halt. Of course a 2S response to 2D might be of interest to the opponents, but if you are asked about a 2D opening, and you are going to tell them what responses there are then you will presumably have to explain all thirty. On the other hand the information should be available to oppos if they need it. The practical answer is, of course, to let them ask further questions if they need to know more, and to answer those further questions. Mind you, it is important to answer reasonably helpfully. When asked what 4NT means, the suggestion "asking for aces" seems pretty poor in this day and age. I am quite sure than an ethical player will always feel duty bound to say what form of Blackwood they are playing. >And what I should like to have settled is whether the questions >on the interpretation of a call may include, not only the call itself >and not only relevant calls available in that round but not made, >but even also possible relevant responses. The interest for LHO >would be when he is to decide whether he has an opportunity for >some call "disturbing" to that conventional agreement. The questions may be asked, and answered. But there is usually no need to answer such questions before they are asked. The game works best when people tend to answer questions in a helpful fashion. >It may very well be the intention of Law 20 that explanations (and >questions) should be limited to what has happened (or could have >happened) in the auction so far, excluding explanations of future >calls until they (can) occur. This is in contravention of the wording of L75A. -------------- Marvin L. French writes >When I remarked about this to another opponent, he said "That's >more than I require," and showed me his CC. For HCP range he had written >"YES", whatever that is supposed to mean. It means he is rude, and not interested in disclosure. Someone should hit him with a sizeable penalty. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:39:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBeb01679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3CNAbH01644 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:39 +1000 (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 16wA0o-000AKU-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:22:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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 >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.* What do you think they should do? Tell NCBOs not to run the game for the benefit of their members? >* 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. ---------- Eric Landau writes >At 06:28 AM 3/25/02, twm wrote: >>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. What do they want to fight for? It is a reasonable presumption that the authorities in NAmerica have some idea what is good for NAmerican players. Why should an international organisation based in Paris want to tell NAmerica how to regulate? ---------- Tim West-meads writes >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. Not at all. You see to assume [for example] the Austrian reg is not in the best interest of Austrians. Why not - because you don't like it? There seems a feeling amongst some people in this thread that if NCBOs have bent the Laws slightly in regulating then that is wrong. But perhaps the WBF is not prepared to challenge this not through weakness but because they realise that there is no reason to disagree. Just because some BLML members believe the Austrian approach is flawed legally they seem to conclude that it is not in the best interests of the game. I do not see why this follows. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:39:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNB7q01665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNACH01586 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:12 +1000 (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 16wA0T-000AKU-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:24:42 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> In-Reply-To: <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum writes >The first thing you have to decide is ,should you warn E before he corrects >to 2H. Had the TD done that there wouldn't have been any problem. Warn him what, Israel? Until you can agree what is legal, what a player can do, what is adjustable then the TD cannot issue a warning. ------------- Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ It would be open to the Director to read the >law to the players. Of course. But since we do not agree what the Law means I am quite sure that after you have read it to the players one of two things will happen: [1] At least one player will say "What does that mean?" [2] The players will accept it without question, but when you make some sort of adjustment at the end [or refuse to] at least one player will say "But you read out the Law, and that is not what it said!" I think we have to do better than that, Grattan! ------------- Steve Willner writes >How do you rule 1C-(1C changed to 2C), where the offenders have no >natural 2C bid in their vocabulary? Surely they cannot use an IB to >create a new, natural bid instead of their normal artificial one. What >prevents them from doing so, other than 27B1b? L72B1. Classic case. ------------- Sven Pran writes >Law 27B1(b) as we know it today has been the same all the >time, and in their comments to the laws written in 1981 and >in 1992 first Bent (for the Danish lawbook), and next Grattan >and Bent together have emphasized in various words that if >the information from the insufficient bid was significantly >different from the information conveyed by the replacement >bid, the information from the insufficient bid should be >considered as possibly damaging the non-offending side and >cause the Director to judge whether an adjustment should be >made. > >And the "damage" should be measured against the result >obtainable, not as if there had been no irregularity, but as if >the replacement bid had been the only bid made by the >offender in that round. According to this, Grattan, you would adjust in the original case because the 4H bid does not lead to a >result >obtainable, not as if there had been no irregularity, but as if >the replacement bid had been the only bid made by the >offender in that round. Is this right? So you do not accept the French argument that there is only damage if you would have reached a different contract without hte insufficient bid? Or has the change of Law in 1997 meant that this bit of the EBL commentary no longer applies? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:47:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3CNBi501681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:11:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3CNAfH01651 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:10:43 +1000 (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 16wA0o-000AKW-0Z for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 23:59:29 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:37:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020322133722.00b5dcc0@pop.starpower.net> <007f01c1d1dc$1c117140$b116b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <007f01c1d1dc$1c117140$b116b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >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. Well, that argument is, anyway. OK, so you consider more important to follow your view of the rules than to allow people to enjoy themselves. I am not impressed. >It is time the WBF stood up to these SO rather than make unconvincing >convoluted arguments allowing these ludicrous regulations. Or possibly that people like you allowed countries to make regs that are what their players want. ----------- richard willey writes >>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. No doubt true, but so what? Just because the Austrians feel something is best for their members does not mean they are then going to act as total idiots because they can. I doubt there is anything in the Law book to stop the Austrians from banning gay women, or people wearing ties, or people whose last name begins with E. But to assume that they will do so is fairly silly, and does not get this argument anywhere sensible. ----------- Tim West-meads writes >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? I would penalise everyone. After all, if Belgium thinks it is best, who am I to disagree? As for the opposite, Belgium would not use him again. But the presumption that the WBF wants NCBOs to act in a particular way when the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary seems strange to me. ----------- Herman De Wael writes >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 opposite, surely? The "Nuremberg defence" of "I was only following orders" was deemed unacceptable as an excuse for committing atrocities, was it not? ----------- -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 10:52:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D0ppI01842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 10:51:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3D0pkH01838 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 10:51:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18079; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:40:51 -0700 Message-Id: <200204130040.RAA18079@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 12 Apr 2002 20:31:29 BST." Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 17:40:52 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > In all places that I know on the internet, including various places > that quote Netiquette rules, CAPITALS is considered shouting. *Bold* is > shown by asterisks, and **very bold** is possible. _Underlining_ is > shown by underscores before and after, but nothing I know shows italic. I think the same convention used for underlining shows italic too. When using a typewriter, it's a long-established convention that you underline something (such as a Latin word or phrase) that's supposed to be italicized when printed. At least, that's the method I learned when I was writing term papers back in high school and college. I went along with it because I found that other attempts at typing italics, such as tilting my typewriter at an angle, didn't work very well. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 15:45:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D5iFM02042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 15:44:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3D5iAH02038 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 15:44:10 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 18150 invoked by uid 504); 13 Apr 2002 05:32:58 -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 1.431811 secs); 13 Apr 2002 05:32:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.194) by 0 with SMTP; 13 Apr 2002 05:32:56 -0000 Message-ID: <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:28:05 +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: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 7:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Wayne Burrows writes > >----- 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. > > It is not plainly illegal nor unreasonable. Of course it has been > discussed here and on RGB ad nauseam. > > L40D allows the regulation of conventions. Allowing conventions to be > played "only if they are not psyched" is a regulation of conventions. > > Yes, I know what you are going to say: L40A permits it anyway. No, it > does not, because you are playing an illegal convention if you psyche > it. > > It is plainly legal to restrict psyches of conventional bids under > L40D. Whether reasonable I have no comment. > L40A allows a player to make any intentionally misleading call. L40D allows a sponsoring organisation to regulate conventions. The sponsoring organisation regulates that i may not make certain misleading calls. They have forgotton (or worse ignored) L80F which does not allow regulations in conflict with the laws and here a conflick exists with what is plainly written in L40A. 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 Apr 13 16:06:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D66S902060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:06:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3D66NH02056 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:06:24 +1000 (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 g3D5tFx25593 for ; Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <018001c1e2af$bdc8eb60$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 22:54:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > > Full disclosure does not mean that we should bring the game to a > grinding halt. Of course a 2S response to 2D might be of interest to > the opponents, but if you are asked about a 2D opening, and you are > going to tell them what responses there are then you will presumably > have to explain all thirty. > > On the other hand the information should be available to oppos if they > need it. The practical answer is, of course, to let them ask further > questions if they need to know more, and to answer those further > questions. > I have a problem with a player's explaining what his next bid is going to mean. Doesn't seem right, somehow, if partner can hear it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 17:00:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D6xoQ02100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:59:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3D6xhH02096 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:59:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47399.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.39]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3D6mXr14662 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 08:48:33 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CB7D4FD.4040609@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 08:49:33 +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: <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020412163921.00af8460@pop.starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree with Eric on this one: Eric Landau wrote: > At 09:14 AM 4/12/02, David wrote: > >> Israel Erdnbaum writes >> >If it goes 1H -P- 1H it's usually very clear what has happened. >> >> Yes. Either >> >> [1] East did not see the opening bid, or >> [2] he thought the opening bid was 1C or 1D, or >> [3] he meant to bid something higher, eg 2H. > > > I think Israel is right. When when it goes 1H-P-1H in a BLML post, any > of the three possibilities listed by David might apply. But in real > life, when a TD is called to a real table with live players at it, short > of showing up at table-side wearing blinders and earplugs he will know > which is the actual case 99.9% of the time. When they start babbling at > you, you just can't say, "Stop, I don't want to hear it," fast enough > for it to sink in before they've finished talking -- if ever. > > ...at least below the top levels, which is where my directing experience > lies. > It might seem like a good idea (proposed by Rui) to distinguish between the actual insufficient call (AI) and the reasons for making it (and make that UI). But the two are too closely linked, and too often very clear anyway, that I doubt if this were what the lawmakers were saying when they wrote L27B1b. It simply is not practical. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 17:04:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D74IL02119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:04:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3D74CH02115 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:04:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47399.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.39]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3D6qxr19283 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 08:52:59 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CB7D607.1000806@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 08:53:59 +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: <000101c1d8ac$9322f200$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <3CA80EAE.3020901@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Maybe a good example, David, but hardly realistic. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >>Rui Marques wrote: >> > >>I'm sorry Rui, >> > >>>Here, with the correct procedure from the TD and no words spoken that >>>may give rise to UI, I am 100% on the field of "no damage, score >>>stands". >>> > >>This won't stand. >>"No words spoken that may give rise to UI". >>You apparently make a distinction between a player sayiing nothing and >>one saying "oh, I did not see your opening bid", making the bid AI, >>but the words UI? >> > > Certainly. Remarks by a player that show the contents of his hand are > UI to partner. > > >>I doubt if that were the LC intention, since there is really no way >>ever that a 1He bid, when insufficient, is not accompanied by some >>gesture or anything which makes it clear what kind of misapprehension >>the bidder is under. >> > > That's neither true nor relevant. Nowhere in the Laws does it say > that you can tell partner your hand, and it is not UI if you happen to > be making an insufficient bid at the same time. > > If your interpretation was correct then you could bid > > 1H P 1H and say "I have six spades to the ace-king, four > diamonds to the seven, a heart void, and ace-king-ten of clubs". You > would then correct 1H to 2H and smugly let pd pick the final contract > after the TD explains that your 'utterance' is AI to pd. > > The situation referred to in L27B1A is a player making an insufficient > bid. Anything else he does is not part of that. > But how to distinguish ? I can agree that "oh, I did not see your opening bid" might be UI, but how much of it is normally already put into "1He", which is AI? I really don't see that there is any reason to render L16 inoperable on 1He, if then we are to keep it on the remark that must surely accompany the realisation of what happened. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 17:07:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D77Yl02135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:07:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3D77SH02131 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:07:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47399.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.39]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3D6uCr22759 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 08:56:12 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CB7D6C8.5060100@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 08:57:12 +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] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) References: <3CABFB16.1030907@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > I agree totally with Herman. > for those of you relatively new to this list, this has happened before. Can't remember when though. No seriously, we agree far often that we care to write it out. But when we do, it won't take up 200 messages on blml. > > What am I saying? > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 17:36:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D7aA302165 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:36:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3D7a5H02161 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:36:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2010.bb.online.no [80.212.215.218]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA20573 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:24:49 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002b01c1e2bc$4bd0f900$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 09:24:49 +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 You confirm my point exactly David! (Sorry if I was not clear?) From: "David Stevenson" > Sven Pran writes > > >Thank you for making your point very well. I have no objection > >if that shall be the rule, but I tried to give some cases where the > >actual response alternatives, particularly to conventional calls, > >might be important for LHO to know before he selects his call. > >(We have had this discussion here already, but I don't think we > >reached any result). > > Full disclosure does not mean that we should bring the game to a > grinding halt. Of course a 2S response to 2D might be of interest to > the opponents, but if you are asked about a 2D opening, and you are > going to tell them what responses there are then you will presumably > have to explain all thirty. > > On the other hand the information should be available to oppos if they > need it. The practical answer is, of course, to let them ask further > questions if they need to know more, and to answer those further > questions. > > Mind you, it is important to answer reasonably helpfully. When asked > what 4NT means, the suggestion "asking for aces" seems pretty poor in > this day and age. I am quite sure than an ethical player will always > feel duty bound to say what form of Blackwood they are playing. > > >And what I should like to have settled is whether the questions > >on the interpretation of a call may include, not only the call itself > >and not only relevant calls available in that round but not made, > >but even also possible relevant responses. The interest for LHO > >would be when he is to decide whether he has an opportunity for > >some call "disturbing" to that conventional agreement. > > The questions may be asked, and answered. But there is usually no > need to answer such questions before they are asked. The game works > best when people tend to answer questions in a helpful fashion. > > >It may very well be the intention of Law 20 that explanations (and > >questions) should be limited to what has happened (or could have > >happened) in the auction so far, excluding explanations of future > >calls until they (can) occur. > > This is in contravention of the wording of L75A. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 19:20:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D9JWN02219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:19:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3D9JQH02215 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:19:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.77.238]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUI0030C1DKA0@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:08:11 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:09:47 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] trial To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <006001c1e2d3$583798e0$ee4d003e@mycomputer> 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_NAi3R859f8R2SZaRTQfaaA)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <003201c1e0ad$0fe7d460$2b4b003e@mycomputer> <000201c1e1f6$0ec85920$05033dd4@b0e7g1> <009801c1e231$8775be40$c04c003e@mycomputer> <000201c1e2c0$98de7ac0$03053dd4@b0e7g1> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_NAi3R859f8R2SZaRTQfaaA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ben Schelen=20 To: Israel Erdnbaum=20 Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 7:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] trial Israel, Of course you can do that; you are welcome.Maybe it is only of = interest in case you need advice from somebody. But if you make only a test, an e-mail only to yourself will do. Respectfully yours, Ben ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Israel Erdnbaum=20 To: Ben Schelen=20 Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 4:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] trial Thanks for telling me, the facts are that I only learned lately that = I can send to the list before I was ending only to the sender. I have the choice not to write and send or make mistakes [I hope = they don't offend] . Oh I know,but the option to sit down and learn the = basics, is at my age a non starter. Would you advise me to send this posting to the list? iSRAEL=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ben Schelen=20 To: Israel Erdnbaum=20 Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 3:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] trial If you want to make trials, you could sent them only to yourself. Respectfully, Ben ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Israel Erdnbaum=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Cc: Israel Erdenbaum=20 Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 6:30 PM Subject: [BLML] trial =F0=F1=E9=E5=EF =EE=F2=F0=E9=EF =EE=E5=F7 --Boundary_(ID_NAi3R859f8R2SZaRTQfaaA) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ben = Schelen=20
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 = 7:35=20 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] trial

Israel,
 
Of course you can do that; you are = welcome.Maybe=20 it is only of interest in case you need advice from = somebody.
But if you make only a test, an = e-mail only to=20 yourself will do.
Respectfully yours,
 
Ben
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Israel Erdnbaum
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 = 4:50=20 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] = trial

Thanks for = telling me, the=20 facts are that I only learned lately that I can send to the = list =20 before I was ending only to the sender.
I have the choice not to write and = send or make=20 mistakes [I hope they don't offend] . Oh I know,but the option to = sit down=20 and learn the basics, is at my age a non starter.
Would you advise me to send this = posting to the=20 list?
iSRAEL 
 ----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Ben = Schelen=20
To: Israel Erdnbaum =
Sent: Thursday, April 11, = 2002 3:07=20 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] = trial

If you want to make trials, you = could sent=20 them only to yourself.
 
Respectfully,
 
Ben
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Israel Erdnbaum =
To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au= =20
Cc: Israel Erdenbaum =
Sent: Wednesday, April = 10, 2002=20 6:30 PM
Subject: [BLML] = trial

=F0=F1=E9=E5=EF = =EE=F2=F0=E9=EF
=EE=E5=F7
--Boundary_(ID_NAi3R859f8R2SZaRTQfaaA)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 19:27:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D9Qsw02237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:26:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g3D9QlH02228 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:26:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.3.47] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wJcl-000Hym-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 10:15:11 +0100 Message-ID: <000601c1e2cb$e6dd8440$2f03e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 08:35:20 +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: Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > It is plainly legal to restrict psyches of conventional > bids under L40D. Whether reasonable I have no >comment. > +=+ The freedom of speech to which many pay lip service allows of comment upon any subject at all. It is of interest to me, and no doubt to ton and Kojak also, to see what balance of opinion a question arouses - here and elsewhere. Probably to weigh rather than count. It leads at times to a memorandum for the WBFLC or to a Laws Review draft. ~ 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 Apr 13 19:27:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D9QuT02238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:26:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3D9QmH02231 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:26:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.3.47] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wJcm-000Hym-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 10:15:13 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c1e2cb$e7d94960$2f03e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20020401113905-R01050000-11FFD280-4565-11D6-944E-00B53ACC724D-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <002b01c1d9d1$a054f880$a644e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 08:39:21 +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: Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Grattan Endicott writes > >From: "Ed Reppert" > > >> Well and good. But is there no point to a hope > >> that in most cases, good directors will make > >> similar judgements? > > >+=+ The long correspondence has left them with > > a wide field of choice. +=+ > > Oh, I do not think so. The judgement here is easy and > obvious: the meaning of the Law is not. Once we are > agreed on the meaning of the Law I would expect > competent TDs to agree on this one. However, I am > still waiting after reading over half the outstanding > 200 messages to see a meaning ascribed by you, Grattan! > +=+ I do try not to repeat myself as often as some, and only to be assertive rather than contemplative when I have prior authority to which I can refer. Perhaps in this case I have succeeded in keeping my voice down? Not that the matter is necessarily quite so uncomplicated as all that. Let me repeat my thoughts of March 30th: << 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 use his Law 27B1(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 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? >> and I added: <> In another post I have suggested that the current EBL position probably remains as in 27.6, page 97, Example A, of the 1992 Commentary. I have also observed that, without extraneous comment or mannerism, the insufficient bid could be an attempt to open, a response to partner's misheard bid, or an overcall of what he thinks opponent has bid. Having offered these views I have not yet added to them anything i would regard as substantive. ~ 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 Apr 13 19:43:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D9gmO02264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:42:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3D9ggH02260 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:42:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-220.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.220]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g3D9VKcX003035 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:31:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:31:20 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <200204042059.PAA08579@cfa183.harvard.edu> <8qspaugctpnjbum9g9fhhrlhs3isnf1qfo@4ax.com> <8KwRy6MKYyt8EwG8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8KwRy6MKYyt8EwG8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> 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, 12 Apr 2002 19:23:06 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Brian Meadows writes >>On Thu, 4 Apr 2002 15:59:50 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> >>>> From: Brian Meadows >>>> You *do* get lost packets across the internet >>>[and other reasons omitted] >>>... >>>> As far as online >>>> bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws concerning hesitations >>>> out of the window, >>> >>>You seem to have refuted your own example. >>> >> >>I don't think so. >> >>>If the Internet causes hesitations, then they do not come from partner, >>>nor do they suggest one action over another. The Laws cope with this >>>situation just fine; no need to toss them out the window. >> >>But how does a player determine whether the hesitation was a real >>one by partner, and thus can carry UI, or was due to external >>reasons, and thus carries no UI? > > If a player cannot tell whether his pd has given him UI then his pd >has not given him UI. > > If you *know* pd has hesitated then do you really want a game where a >player is allowed to take advantage? > > If you have no idea whether pd has hesitated then there is no problem >because there is no UI. > The point I was trying to make, apparently without success, is that I don't think it's possible to tell *with any certainty* whether the hesitation came from partner or not. It's unclear (at least to me) as to what an online player's obligations are. If I'm sure that the hesitation did originate with partner, then yes, there's no problem. Similarly if I'm sure that it didn't, no problem, although I think that's much harder to tell. What about the less obvious cases, though? At what point in the range of probabilities (no, I'm not expecting an exact percentage!) must I decide that the hesitation is *likely* enough to have come from partner that I must treat the pause as UI? Let's burden you with the knowledge that the default retry interval in the case of packet loss in recent versions of Windows is set to six seconds (I think, I'm not 100% sure of this at this early hour). If partner hesitates for around 8 seconds (in-tempo bid with one lost packet)? How about 15 seconds (in tempo, but two successive lost packets)? Is a player who knows about packet loss across the net justified in coming up with a different assessment as to whether his partner was responsible for the delay than a player who knows just enough to log on and play? This is where I think the problem arises in applying the current laws regarding UI from tempo variations to online bridge. Let's try an example. Partner's bids have been in reasonable tempo over the two hands you have played so far. Now I have a decision to make, one where the choice I would make is not available to me *if* partner has hesitated. I address the question to those who think it's an easy matter - what is the longest delay in seeing partner's bid come up (approximately, of course) that you feel justified in ignoring? David, do you remember that tourney we played together (given the difference in our playing abilities, you probably *can't* forget it!) You had hellish connection problems to start with, then after a couple of hands, things seemed to clear up. How many hands did I have to see where you had a decent connection before I started taking notice of tempo variations again? I'm *not* disagreeing with what David says about the problem. If you really can't tell, then fair enough. What I want to know is how to deal with the case where you think it's probable, but *far* from certain, or where you think it's slightly more likely than not, or...... 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 Sat Apr 13 19:49:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3D9mw402279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:48:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3D9mqH02275 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:48:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-220.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.220]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g3D9bbcX003356 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:37:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 05:37:37 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 19:14:21 +0100, David Stevenson wrote: >Tim West-meads writes >>In-Reply-To: >>Brian Meadows wrote: >> >>> As far as online >>> bridge is concerned, you can toss the laws concerning hesitations >>> out of the window, and most people with any experience of online >>> bridge realise that. >> >>Personally I have yet to realise it. "Thinking" hesitations are harder to >>detect on-line - but far from impossible. > > Especially when someone types "thk". > Anyone who does that publicly needs (IMHO) to have it pointed out to them that such messages should go just to opponents. The only time when it's justifiable letting your partner see the message is the rare occasion on which you KNOW your bid is going to end the auction, whatever you decide to do. I'm talking from experience with OKBridge here, I don't know whether this is possible with other online providers, although it certainly ought to be if it isn't. Brian. -- Software development and computer consulting Brian Meadows Tel: 570-724-5172 Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Fax: 413-480-2709 RR#5, Box 5A, Wellsboro PA 16901 ICQ: 1981272 http://www.wellsborocomputing.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 20:17:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DAGm802307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:16:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl (rebecca.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3DAGgH02303 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:16:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (unknown [195.240.61.39]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 54E5F8A30E3; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 12:05:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003401c1e2d2$30c968c0$273df0c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 11:50:31 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >> >+=+ The long correspondence has left them with >> > a wide field of choice. +=+ >> >> Oh, I do not think so. The judgement here is easy and >> obvious: the meaning of the Law is not. Once we are >> agreed on the meaning of the Law I would expect >> competent TDs to agree on this one. However, I am >> still waiting after reading over half the outstanding >> 200 messages to see a meaning ascribed by you, Grattan! The problem in this group is that it doesn't have a procedure to agree on anything. And it should not have a procedure to agree on the meaning of the laws. That is done somewhere else. Reading the answer from Grattan below the LC probably has to form an official opinion, since I am not sure Grattan's approach trying to bring in all kind of details related to the possible meaning of the insufficient 1H-bid should be followed. The remarks made by the player are UI, yes, but more generally knowing that 1H was meant as an opening bid is not UI. Partner may assume it was meant as an opening bid. The approach to be followed, and I explained that in the one message I spent on this subject - but who cares - is that the TD should not allow a profitable result that would not have been reached had the I.B. not been made. That - in my opinion - is what the combination of 27B1a and b is telling us. I am not saying this crtiterion is easy to handle, but we have capable TD's to deal with it. ton >+=+ I do try not to repeat myself as often as some, and only >to be assertive rather than contemplative when I have prior >authority to which I can refer. Perhaps in this case I have >succeeded in keeping my voice down? Not that the matter >is necessarily quite so uncomplicated as all that. Let me >repeat my thoughts of March 30th: > << 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 use his Law 27B1(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 >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? >> > and I added: <think about. >> In another post I have suggested that >the current EBL position probably remains as in 27.6, >page 97, Example A, of the 1992 Commentary. I have >also observed that, without extraneous comment or >mannerism, the insufficient bid could be an attempt >to open, a response to partner's misheard bid, or an >overcall of what he thinks opponent has bid. Having >offered these views I have not yet added to them >anything i would regard as substantive. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 13 21:16:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DBFSj02344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:15:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3DBFMH02340 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:15:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2010.bb.online.no [80.212.215.218]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA26214 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:04:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000701c1e2da$eea197c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <003401c1e2d2$30c968c0$273df0c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:04:07 +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 Ton's interpretation of Law27B1(a) and (b) below is of course one alternative, another is an interpretation that could seem obvious after inspecting how this law has evolved over the more than 70 years we have had laws of Duplicate Bridge: The insufficient bid is an infraction, you cannot reverse that, and the established penalty is that offenders partner is required to pass for the rest of the auction unless certain conditions exist. The reason for this penalty must obviously be to protect the non offending side from damage because offenders partner has received information from this infraction. This can easily lead to a deduction that whenever the replacement bid does not essentially change the information conveyed by the insufficient bid, no damage to NOS is likely even if the auction proceeds as if there were no infraction. This logic leads us to law 27B1(b) as a safeguard on those cases where, although all conditions specified in law27B1(a) appear to have been met, there seem to be damage to non offending side. So what constitutes "damage"? The laws are silent when Law27B1 applies. What is the expected (acceptable) result for offending side? Is it the normal result from an auction without any insufficient bid, or is it the result from an auction where the ("compulsory") replacement bid had been the only bid by the offender in that round? 20 years ago when i was first trained for TD there seemed to be no doubt: It should be taken as the result as if the insufficient bid had never been made, but the offender had only made the "replacement" bid, even if this would show a completely different hand from what he actually held. Example: (Natural, Acols limited raises) 1H - 1H (intended as an opening bid, corrected to 2H) Opener was supposed to bid as if the auction had gone 1H - 2H, and with a minimum opening hand he had no alternative to pass. Is this still the intention by the LC? I have no idea after following this thread. Grattans last post seems to indicate that the intention of Law27B1 has not changed. I do wonder what, if any, are the udesirable effects of removing the clause that Law16C2 does not apply from Law27B1(a)? (But keeping Law27B1(b) as it is) Sven From: "Ton Kooijman" > The problem in this group is that it doesn't have a procedure to agree on > anything. And it should not have a procedure to agree on the meaning of the > laws. That is done somewhere else. Reading the answer from Grattan below the > LC probably has to form an official opinion, since I am not sure Grattan's > approach trying to bring in all kind of details related to the possible > meaning of the insufficient 1H-bid should be followed. The remarks made by > the player are UI, yes, but more generally knowing that 1H was meant as an > opening bid is not UI. Partner may assume it was meant as an opening bid. > > The approach to be followed, and I explained that in the one message I spent > on this subject - but who cares - is that the TD should not allow a > profitable result that would not have been reached had the I.B. not been > made. That - in my opinion - is what the combination of 27B1a and b is > telling us. I am not saying this crtiterion is easy to handle, but we have > capable TD's to deal with it. > > > ton > > > > > > >+=+ I do try not to repeat myself as often as some, and only > >to be assertive rather than contemplative when I have prior > >authority to which I can refer. Perhaps in this case I have > >succeeded in keeping my voice down? Not that the matter > >is necessarily quite so uncomplicated as all that. Let me > >repeat my thoughts of March 30th: > > << 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 use his Law 27B1(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 > >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? >> > > and I added: < >think about. >> In another post I have suggested that > >the current EBL position probably remains as in 27.6, > >page 97, Example A, of the 1992 Commentary. I have > >also observed that, without extraneous comment or > >mannerism, the insufficient bid could be an attempt > >to open, a response to partner's misheard bid, or an > >overcall of what he thinks opponent has bid. Having > >offered these views I have not yet added to them > >anything i would regard as substantive. > > ~ 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 Apr 13 22:39:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DCd2Q02383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:39:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3DCcsH02375 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:38:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.142.135] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wMcg-000Mlj-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:27:19 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c1e2e6$92785680$878e403e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kees van der Weijden" , Cc: "David Stevenson" References: <6FsfdzB22Yt8Ewm7@asimere.com> <009a01c1e222$c9ee7d20$2a1e54d5@compaq> Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:16:33 +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 Grattan Endicott To: Cc: "David Stevenson" Sent: 12 April 2002 14:04 Subject: Re: [BLML] This must be simple... > > > The laws are designed for non-intentional > irregularities. And I see no difference > between either a second bid with cards > either or a second bid said or suggested > (director's presence doesn't matter and > may not be an excuse for UI-distribution). > THE UI HAS REACHED PARTNER is the > only thing does matter. > > Making difference between UI of the same > kind is inconsequent. In fact you change > the rules because you think the rules are > too rigorous. You may not do so (72A6). > > Therefore MUST be either 25 or 31 in > charge. If that isn't possible, than the Laws > are insufficient. > > > Kees van der Weijden, the Netherlands. > +=+ The error, Kees, lies in thinking that an irregularity has occurred. Extraneous information has been made available to the lady's partner, but this involves no breach of law. An irregularity will occur if the partner bases action upon it. The relevant Law is 16A. There is no irregularity in the auction; to ask the Director for a ruling is not an irregularity and is not part of the auction. Law 31 is a red herring based upon flawed understanding. The only question for the Director is whether to allow a change under Law 25. ~ 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 Apr 13 22:39:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DCd4D02384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:39:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g3DCcvH02379 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:38:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.142.135] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wMcf-000Mlj-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:27:17 +0100 Message-ID: <000801c1e2e6$917c9160$878e403e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 15:04:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: 12 April 2002 12:35 Subject: RE: [BLML] more than sufficient bid > > > > Thank you all for your well considered reactions. > Though it was pairs I have the feeling that my > ethical standard, at least in this case, might be > questioned. > > ton > -- +=+ Judgement perhaps; ethical standard, no. It is very much my view that a distinction must be made between players who try to comply with the law but misjudge, and those who simply do not try. ~ 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 Apr 14 00:42:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DEfDY02444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 00:41:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rebecca.tiscali.nl (rebecca.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3DEf8H02440 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 00:41:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (unknown [195.240.62.6]) by rebecca.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0464C8A3945; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:29:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005201c1e2f7$2310fd40$273df0c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Sven Pran" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 16:01:52 +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 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's interpretation of Law27B1(a) and (b) below is of course one >alternative, >another is an interpretation that could seem obvious after inspecting how >this law has evolved over the more than 70 years we have had laws of >Duplicate Bridge: > >The insufficient bid is an infraction, you cannot reverse that, and the >established penalty is that offenders partner is required to pass for the >rest of the auction unless certain conditions exist. The reason for this >penalty must obviously be to protect the non offending side from damage >because offenders partner has received information from this infraction. > >This can easily lead to a deduction that whenever the replacement bid >does not essentially change the information conveyed by the insufficient >bid, no damage to NOS is likely even if the auction proceeds as if there >were no infraction. > >This logic leads us to law 27B1(b) as a safeguard on those cases where, >although all conditions specified in law27B1(a) appear to have been met, >there seem to be damage to non offending side. > >So what constitutes "damage"? The laws are silent when Law27B1 applies. > That is where we agree. It would have been less easy to dismiss your approach when there had been a convincing argument in it explaining why L27 tells us that L16C2 does not apply after which you treat the irregularity applying that L16C2. >What is the expected (acceptable) result for offending side? >Is it the normal result from an auction without any insufficient bid, >or is it the result from an auction where the ("compulsory") >replacement bid had been the only bid by the offender in that round? > >20 years ago when i was first trained for TD there seemed to be no >doubt: I am not so sure about that. Twenty years ago there was no mentioning of L16 in L27 (then) a. Which created a problem since L16 didn't say anything about restrictions in using UI after paying a penalty. And 27 itself was unclear in its meaning. In '87 it became less clear even. Hardly any change in L27 but L16 told us that information from withdrawn calls was authorized when the applicable penalty was paid. And now very philosophical discussions started with the question whether a pair had payed the applicable penalty when the penalty was that the auction continued without a penalty (L27). Hours of fine considerations. A lot of doubts so, 20 years ago. 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 Apr 14 01:40:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DFeKh02503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 01:40:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3DFeEH02499 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 01:40:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2602.bb.online.no [80.212.218.42]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA15289 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:28:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000701c1e2ff$ee989740$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <005201c1e2f7$2310fd40$273df0c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 17:28:58 +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: "Ton Kooijman" ..... > >20 years ago when i was first trained for TD there seemed to be no > >doubt: > > > I am not so sure about that. Twenty years ago there was no mentioning of L16 > in L27 (then) a. > Which created a problem since L16 didn't say anything about restrictions in > using UI after paying a penalty. And 27 itself was unclear in its meaning. (L27A then as now was about insufficient bid accepted) Extract from the laws of 1975 (translated back from Danish): L27B1a: If the insufficient bid is replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination the auction continues as if there had been no irregularity (however, note the following point b) L27B1b: If the insufficient bid gave so substantial information as to damage the non-offending side, the Director may assign an adjusted score. (end quote) In our training it was emphasized that L27B1b could apply in all cases where there was a significant difference in the interpretation of the insufficient bid from the information conveyed by the replacing bid, for instance if the insufficient bid indicated an opening strength hand while the replacing bid indicated no more than a simple raise. This training was based among other items on comments to the laws written by Bent Keith Hansen who later (I believe) became a member of the EBL laws Committee and who was a co-writer (together with Grattan Endicott) of the Commentary on the laws in 1992. > In '87 it became less clear even. Hardly any change in L27 but L16 told us > that information from withdrawn calls was authorized when the applicable > penalty was paid. And now very philosophical discussions started with the > question whether a pair had payed the applicable penalty when the penalty > was that the auction continued without a penalty (L27). Hours of fine > considerations. No, nothing was changed as for Law27 in 1987 (except that it became the express option for the director in L27B1b to judge whether the information was so substantial as to damage ...). Before 1987 all information from an irregularity was available also to the offending side after the prescribed penalty had been paid (Proprieties). The 1987 laws introduced Law16C2 maintaining that such information from its own withdrawn actions was still available to the offending side. The 1997 laws changed Law16C2 so that withdrawn actions were no longer available to the offending side, but at the same time added the note in Law27B1a that this new L16C2 was not applicable in situations covered by L27B1a. It would appear that UI has never (at least over the last 25 years) been an issue together with Law27, but that L27 has included its own rule as to how the offending side could use information from an insufficient bid. I am still anxiously waiting to see the outcome. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 05:23:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DJMDu02633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:22:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3DJM6H02629 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:22:08 +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 g3DJB4x23121 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:11:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 19:47:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] more than sufficient bid References: <000801c1e2e6$917c9160$878e403e@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000801c1e2e6$917c9160$878e403e@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000801c1e2e6$917c9160$878e403e@pacific>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott================================= >"But I have that within which passeth show, > These but the trappings and the suits of woe." > ['Hamlet'] >+ - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kooijman, A." >To: ; >Sent: 12 April 2002 12:35 >Subject: RE: [BLML] more than sufficient bid > > >> >> >> >> Thank you all for your well considered reactions. >> Though it was pairs I have the feeling that my >> ethical standard, at least in this case, might be >> questioned. >> >> ton >> -- >+=+ Judgement perhaps; ethical standard, no. >It is very much my view that a distinction must >be made between players who try to comply >with the law but misjudge, and those who simply >do not try. ~ G ~ +=+ > With this view I concur completely. It is usually clear whether a player is on the make, or an innocent offender. I deal with the situations entirely differently. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 14 05:30:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DJU7l02645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:30:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3DJU2H02641 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:30:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.73.130] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wSxz-00081H-00; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:13:44 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c1e320$2c51c6e0$8249e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:17:51 +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: Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 . > > They have forgotton (or worse ignored) L80F which > does not allow regulations in conflict with the laws > and here a conflick exists with what is plainly > written in L40A. > > Wayne > +=+ I should walk away. Why be drawn to note that Wayne chooses to forget what he has been told about this many times? The powers decided in 1990 that Law 80F applies to regulations made under Law 80F - it does not restrict regulations authorized by other sections of the laws (e.g. 40D, 80E etc.). This decision has since been relied upon by the ACBL, the EBL, and the WBF itself, plus some NBOs. ~ G ~ +=+ "The thing on the blind side of the heart, On the wrong side of the door, The green plant groweth, menacing Almighty lovers in the Spring; There is always a forgotten thing, And love is not secure." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 05:46:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DJkGO02666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:46:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3DJkAH02662 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:46:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.8.108] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wTDR-0006Kp-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:29:41 +0100 Message-ID: <004a01c1e322$66f1cb40$8249e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <003401c1e2d2$30c968c0$273df0c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 20:31:33 +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: "Grattan Endicott" ; Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 10:50 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > >> > The problem in this group is that it doesn't have a procedure > to agree on anything. And it should not have a procedure to > agree on the meaning of the laws. That is done somewhere > else. Reading the answer from Grattan below the LC probably > has to form an official opinion, since I am not sure Grattan's > approach trying to bring in all kind of details related to the > possible meaning of the insufficient 1H-bid should be followed. > +=+ It may well be time to review the subject once again. My answer was based upon what the EBL agreed and published in 1992, which in turn had been agreed with Edgar Kaplan. ~ 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 Apr 14 06:48:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DKmQP02700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 06:48:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3DKmKH02696 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 06:48:21 +1000 (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 g3DKbBk14270 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006801c1e32a$f20aa500$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <001001c1e320$2c51c6e0$8249e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 13:36:49 -0700 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" > > > The powers decided in 1990 that > Law 80F applies to regulations made under Law 80F > - it does not restrict regulations authorized by other > sections of the laws (e.g. 40D, 80E etc.). What powers were those, and where is it written, please? This is equivalent to saying, "A supplementary regulation pertaining to a law may be established by an SO, provided the regulation does not conflict with that law, although it may conflict with other laws." > This decision has since been relied upon by the > ACBL, the EBL, and the WBF itself, plus some NBOs. But not, SFAIK, approved by the WBF Laws Commission. L80 - Sponsoring organization's duties and powers: L80F - to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws. L80E - to establish conditions for bidding and play.... How any reasonable, reasoning person can think that an SO can legally create a regulation per L80E that conflicts with the Laws merely by saying "We're doing this under L80E, not under L80F," is beyond me. Why not just be honest and say, "We don't give a damn what the Laws permit, we're doing it anyway." Then I suggest that L80F be changed to read: L80F - to publish or announce regulations supplementary to a law, but not in conflict with it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 07:03:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DL3b302728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:03:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3DL3RH02717 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:03:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.67.225] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wUQP-0000NX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:47:09 +0100 Message-ID: <00b701c1e32d$39a48000$8249e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <005201c1e2f7$2310fd40$273df0c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:50:53 +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" ; Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > Which created a problem since L16 didn't say anything > about restrictions in using UI after paying a penalty. And > 27 itself was unclear in its meaning. In '87 it became less > clear even. Hardly any change in L27 but L16 told us > that information from withdrawn calls was authorized > when the applicable penalty was paid. > +=+ However, 27B1(a) referred us to (b) and the latter provided a clear rectification of the inequity when the Director judged it to apply. Whereupon 'after paying the penalty' would mean after applying (b). I do not think the law could have been clearer. It was left to the sponsoring/regulating bodies to guide their Directors when to apply (b). I support the concept of establishing the principle in the laws and allowing the regulators to fine tune it to their particular ambience. I think the wish to dictate all from the centre is despotic, high-handed, and particularly unpragmatic when it aims to shackle major institutions such as zonal organizations. ~ 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 Apr 14 07:03:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DL3YS02727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:03:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3DL3QH02714 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:03:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.67.225] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wUQN-0000NX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:47:08 +0100 Message-ID: <00b601c1e32d$38b983c0$8249e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:26:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 6:28 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > . > > They have forgotton (or worse ignored) L80F which does > not allow regulations in conflict with the laws and here a > conflick exists with what is plainly written in L40A. > > Wayne > +=+ This, Wayne, is your interpretation of the laws. You are entitled to your opinion, but in terms of the administration of the game they are immaterial. The matter has been decided for you. ~ 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 Apr 14 07:03:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DL3f502729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:03:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3DL3SH02720 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:03:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.67.225] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wUQM-0000NX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:47:06 +0100 Message-ID: <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:06:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 5:24 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > ****************************************************************** > According to this, Grattan, you would adjust in the original case > because the 4H bid does not lead to a > >result > >obtainable, not as if there had been no irregularity, but as if > >the replacement bid had been the only bid made by the > >offender in that round. > +=+ I have read this several times and I am stll at a loss to know what it says. I do not think it says what the extract says that I quoted - which is based upon the WBFLC position enunciated in 1987. At the time the key example that was quoted by Kaplan to the committee was the case where the player knew his partner's insufficient bid was of opening strength, which he said was typical of what 27B1(b) was intended to handle. +=+ ****************************************************************** > Is this right? So you do not accept the French argument > that there is only damage if you would have reached a different > contract without hte insufficient bid? Or has the change of Law > in 1997 meant that this bit of the EBL commentary no longer > applies? > +=+ I do not think I have expressed such a view. Whether there is damage is one question; whether the player's 4H bid is based upon illicit information is another. If we are quite certain the only possible contract that would have been reached is 4H, I would think there is no damage; but if there were a margin of doubt in it then to remove the element of uncertainty is damaging. 'Would' have reached is not accurately expressed: 'could' or 'might' have reached is better. Meanwhile on the basis of what was decided long ago the player's 4H bid is a violation of law. Ton feels we should now review this - and maybe so - but in doing so we must have regard for the host of more complex cases that can arise and not judge by the circumstances of this case alone. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 07:17:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DLHPE02784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:17:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3DLHBH02769 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:17:12 +1000 (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 16wUie-000Efr-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:06:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:45:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Nanki Poo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk He is back from the vet, starving, disgruntled, and annoyed. He got wet so they gave him a bath, then dried him with a hair dryer. He hated the journey. However, when he settled at home, and ate about two tons of food, he then purred for four hours. He has asthma in a mild way. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 07:17:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DLHRG02786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:17:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3DLHBH02768 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:17:12 +1000 (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 16wUie-000Efu-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:06:01 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:53:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200204121918.PAA19225@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200204121918.PAA19225@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 >> 1C on your right, 2C would be >> artificial, so with a club suit bid 1C and correct to 2C after the TD >> tells you what to do. That's L72B1! > >No problem now, as David says. > >I'm curious how people would have ruled this under the 1987 Laws, when >72B1 did not exist and partner would not even have been barred. I vote >for 27B1b. If not that, then what? Surely we can't allow a two-way >2C bid: artificial if bid directly but natural if preceded by an IB. It is because there were difficulties in this type of case that L72B1 was introduced. >> Is a player fully allowed to use the information from the insufficient >> bid, and we shall only adjust if we judge he will not get to that >> contract if there was no insufficient bid at all? > >And if we do adjust, what is the "irregularity" for purposes of L12C2? The insufficient bid . If we judge the pair would not reach 4H then without the insufficient bid we assign based on not including the insufficient bid and thus not reaching 4H. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 07:17:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DLHR802785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:17:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3DLHBH02770 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:17:12 +1000 (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 16wUie-000Eft-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:06:02 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:50:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA5F467.C540FB67@t-online.de> <002501c1e240$5c099240$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <002501c1e240$5c099240$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" >> This is one of the single most important posts here in my view. Is >> this what L27B2 means, or isn't it? I will tell you that I posted the >> thread when I discovered that certain top French TDs assume this is the >> meaning of L27B2, ie that you do not adjust if the players reach a >> contract they likely would have reached if one of them had not made an >> insufficient bid, even though they assumed the information from the >> insufficient bid. >> >> Now I think the British view would be to adjust if they had used the >> information from the insufficient bid to get there. However, there are >> further difficulties with that approach, so I shall read a few more >> posts before getting into that. >...... >> We have now reached a fork in the road: is the French view correct? >> Is a player fully allowed to use the information from the insufficient >> bid, and we shall only adjust if we judge he will not get to that >> contract if there was no insufficient bid at all? > >Do I understand you correct David? >If the case comes under Law27B2 there cannot be any question of using >information from the insufficient bid? The only player on the offending side >who may still participate in the auction with anything else than pass has >not received any unauthorized information, he is the one who in case has >delivered it. > >Can there ever be any case of adjusting the result after L27B2? I meant L27B1B. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 07:17:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DLHUn02787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:17:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3DLHCH02771 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:17:12 +1000 (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 16wUie-000Efs-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:06:02 +0100 Message-ID: <2zVDs3BdB4t8EwF7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 01:48:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000401c1d75b$096e3da0$9e3f81d9@netvisao.pt> <003f01c1d75d$4e103560$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <5nkA5XGZ2tt8Ew0X@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.0.20020412163921.00af8460@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020412163921.00af8460@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 09:14 AM 4/12/02, David wrote: > >>Israel Erdnbaum writes >> >If it goes 1H -P- 1H it's usually very clear what has happened. >> >> Yes. Either >> >>[1] East did not see the opening bid, or >>[2] he thought the opening bid was 1C or 1D, or >>[3] he meant to bid something higher, eg 2H. > >I think Israel is right. When when it goes 1H-P-1H in a BLML post, any >of the three possibilities listed by David might apply. But in real >life, when a TD is called to a real table with live players at it, >short of showing up at table-side wearing blinders and earplugs he will >know which is the actual case 99.9% of the time. When they start >babbling at you, you just can't say, "Stop, I don't want to hear it," >fast enough for it to sink in before they've finished talking -- if ever. Sure, but then the hand loses interest because it is no longer a L27B2 case, but a L16A and L73C case. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 07:53:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3DLqYc02824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:52:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3DLqTH02820 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 07:52:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2602.bb.online.no [80.212.218.42]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA20928 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 23:41:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005701c1e333$ef55cf20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA5F467.C540FB67@t-online.de> <002501c1e240$5c099240$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 23:41:13 +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 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" > >Do I understand you correct David? > >If the case comes under Law27B2 there cannot be any question of using > >information from the insufficient bid? The only player on the offending side > >who may still participate in the auction with anything else than pass has > >not received any unauthorized information, he is the one who in case has > >delivered it. > > > >Can there ever be any case of adjusting the result after L27B2? > > I meant L27B1B. > Thank you, that makes sense. Now I should like to hear an answer from somebody who can imagine what undesirable effects could be the result if Law 27B1(a) were to be rewritten as: If both the insufficient bid and the bid substituted are incontrovertibly not conventional and if the bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, the auction continues as though the irregularity had not occurred (but see (b) following). This will remove all doubts that the information conveyed by the insufficient bid is unauthorized for the offending side except to the extent that such information is also conveyed by the substituted bid or (if applicable) by later calls in the auction. (And frankly, I do suspect that this has always been the intention of Law27B1) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 10:18:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E0HJo02898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:17:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3E0HEH02894 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:17:14 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 11784 invoked by uid 504); 14 Apr 2002 00:06:01 -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 1.737971 secs); 14 Apr 2002 00:06:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.175) by 0 with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 00:05:59 -0000 Message-ID: <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <00b601c1e32d$38b983c0$8249e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:01:39 +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: Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "... having joined together some of the ideas > very wrongly, they mistake them for truths..." > - John Locke. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 6:28 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > > > > . > > > > They have forgotton (or worse ignored) L80F which does > > not allow regulations in conflict with the laws and here a > > conflick exists with what is plainly written in L40A. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ This, Wayne, is your interpretation of the laws. You > are entitled to your opinion, but in terms of the > administration of the game they are immaterial. The > matter has been decided for you. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Interpretation maybe but only the interpretation that a rational reading of the laws would come to without a knowledge of some convoluted interpretation that has been made and ineffectively promulgated. Why not simply revise the laws so that they say what they mean. I look forward to an explicit statement that a regulation made under this law may conflict with other laws. But to my mind such a law would be ludicrous. Here are some regulations that if made are apparently legal: If you play the xyz Convention then you may revoke in the play; If you play the zyx Convention then you may revise the contract after seeing the dummy. These are regulations of conventions that plain conflict with laws - I am sure that no-one would find them acceptable but somehow the same minds find it acceptable to have a regulation of conventions that violate law 40A. For me I don't see that there is any difference in the pronouncement between violating that law and any other law. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 10:21:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E0LTl02917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:21:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3E0LOH02913 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:21:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 13878 invoked by uid 504); 14 Apr 2002 00:10:11 -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 1.447891 secs); 14 Apr 2002 00:10:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.175) by 0 with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 00:10:09 -0000 Message-ID: <008001c1e348$23d1ff80$f116b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Wayne Burrows" , References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <001001c1e320$2c51c6e0$8249e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:05:50 +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: Grattan Endicott To: Wayne Burrows ; Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 7:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "And (as I gather from a bystander) their doctrine > could be held by no sane man." > - Robert Browning > (about the preaching of missionaries) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wayne Burrows" > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 6:28 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > > . > > > > They have forgotton (or worse ignored) L80F which > > does not allow regulations in conflict with the laws > > and here a conflick exists with what is plainly > > written in L40A. > > > > Wayne > > > +=+ I should walk away. Why be drawn to note that > Wayne chooses to forget what he has been told about > this many times? The powers decided in 1990 that > Law 80F applies to regulations made under Law 80F > - it does not restrict regulations authorized by other > sections of the laws (e.g. 40D, 80E etc.). And it is as ridiculous now as it was then. If you want to change the meaning of the law then rewrite it. I don't believe that those who made the ruling really believe that a regulation made under L40D is allowed to conflict with any other law - revokes, insufficient bids, bids out of rotation etc etc could all be allowed after a conventional 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 Sun Apr 14 10:50:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E0nvh02947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:49:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3E0nmH02937 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:49:48 +1000 (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 16wY2I-000Jxf-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 01:38:38 +0100 Message-ID: <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 00:00:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@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 >+=+ I do not think I have expressed such a view. Whether >there is damage is one question; whether the player's 4H >bid is based upon illicit information is another. If we are quite >certain the only possible contract that would have been >reached is 4H, I would think there is no damage; but if there >were a margin of doubt in it then to remove the element >of uncertainty is damaging. 'Would' have reached is not >accurately expressed: 'could' or 'might' have reached is >better. Meanwhile on the basis of what was decided long >ago the player's 4H bid is a violation of law. Ton feels we >should now review this - and maybe so - but in doing so >we must have regard for the host of more complex cases >that can arise and not judge by the circumstances of this >case alone. To find out what a Law means, surely it is best to get a simple case and find out what it does there. We have a case where 4H would be expected to be reached by nearly every pair. We have a case where nothing else untoward happened - there was no TD error, nor extraneous information from comments. 4H was reached by 1H P 1H/2H P 4H on a complete minimum. Does the Law tell us to adjust? Then, when we know the answer to this for certain, we have a basis to look at more complicated cases, where 4H is not routine for example. Now, as I read the above paragraph, you are saying you would not adjust, ie the 4H bid is acceptable. Please confirm this. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 10:50:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E0nqO02943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:49:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3E0njH02932 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:49:45 +1000 (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 16wY2H-000JxX-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 01:38:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 23:44:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >From: David Stevenson >> Wayne Burrows writes >> >From: Grattan Endicott >> >> +=+ 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. >> It is not plainly illegal nor unreasonable. Of course it has been >> discussed here and on RGB ad nauseam. >> >> L40D allows the regulation of conventions. Allowing conventions to be >> played "only if they are not psyched" is a regulation of conventions. >> >> Yes, I know what you are going to say: L40A permits it anyway. No, it >> does not, because you are playing an illegal convention if you psyche >> it. >> >> It is plainly legal to restrict psyches of conventional bids under >> L40D. Whether reasonable I have no comment. >L40A allows a player to make any intentionally misleading call. > >L40D allows a sponsoring organisation to regulate conventions. > >The sponsoring organisation regulates that i may not make certain misleading >calls. > >They have forgotton (or worse ignored) L80F which does not allow regulations >in conflict with the laws and here a conflick exists with what is plainly >written in L40A. No, they have neither forgotten nor ignored it: they just interpret it differently from you. I think you are wrong: they think you are wrong. Of course, it is jolly good fun to tell all these authorities that they should be doing it differently. What the heck, I do it myself. But not to make bridge worse for their players. There is a reasonable reg operated by certain authorities. It is believed to be legal. It is believed to be good in the bridge played under those authorities' auspices. Why not leave it be? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 10:50:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E0nxX02948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:49:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3E0npH02942 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:49:51 +1000 (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 16wY2I-000Jxa-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 01:38:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 23:50:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <018001c1e2af$bdc8eb60$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <018001c1e2af$bdc8eb60$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> Full disclosure does not mean that we should bring the game to a >> grinding halt. Of course a 2S response to 2D might be of interest to >> the opponents, but if you are asked about a 2D opening, and you are >> going to tell them what responses there are then you will presumably >> have to explain all thirty. >> >> On the other hand the information should be available to oppos if >they >> need it. The practical answer is, of course, to let them ask further >> questions if they need to know more, and to answer those further >> questions. >> >I have a problem with a player's explaining what his next bid is going >to mean. Doesn't seem right, somehow, if partner can hear it. The problem is, Marvin, that you are not a believer in Full Disclosure, and I am. To me this game is meant to be played in a way that you *never* gain from opponent's ignorance of your methods: unfortunately you make this a lower priority than UI requirements. A player has a right granted him by L75A [inter alia] to know his opponents' methods: the game is much poorer if this is not followed. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 11:46:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E1kFi02997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 11:46:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3E1kAH02993 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 11:46:10 +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 VAA19592 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id VAA02539 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:34:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:34:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204140134.VAA02539@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 > >And if we do adjust, what is the "irregularity" for purposes of L12C2? > From: David Stevenson > The insufficient bid . If everyone agrees with this, I think the problem is solved. Imagine the following procedure. (You would not necessarily proceed exactly this way in a real case, but I'm trying to make things clear.) _Always_ adjust under L27B1b. We know how to do that: apply L12C2, _starting at the instant just before the IB._ Figure out the "probable" and "at all likely" results per L12C2, then compare to the actual result at the table. If the OS does better than the "at all likely" result, adjust for them. If the NOS does worse than the "probable" result, adjust for them. Of course you treat any L16A problems from remarks, etc., separately, in the usual way. But if there is no such UI, partner of the IB'er can do whatever he wants, including guessing what the IB'er really intended. That is, if the _only_ irregularity is the IB and not something that happens later, the _only_ adjustment one can make is the one above. One cannot adjust for something the IB'ers partner does if it isn't at least an irregularity. I think the problem is that not everyone agrees that the IB is the only irregularity. If IB'ers partner is under some kind of restrictions, for example, if the IB were UI, violating those restrictions would be an irregularity (or infraction), and the adjustment would be different. I can't find anything that restricts the actions of the IB'ers partner, given that L16C2 explicitly does not apply. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 12:29:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E2Tdd03020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:29:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3E2TYH03016 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 12:29:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 6140 invoked by uid 504); 14 Apr 2002 02:18:21 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 0.954783 secs); 14 Apr 2002 02:18:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.175) by 0 with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 02:18:19 -0000 Message-ID: <009501c1e35a$0b527680$f116b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop><37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk><003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:14:00 +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: David Stevenson To: Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > No, they have neither forgotten nor ignored it: they just interpret it > differently from you. I think you are wrong: they think you are wrong. > > Of course, it is jolly good fun to tell all these authorities that > they should be doing it differently. What the heck, I do it myself. > But not to make bridge worse for their players. > > There is a reasonable reg operated by certain authorities. It is > believed to be legal. It is believed to be good in the bridge played > under those authorities' auspices. Why not leave it be? > Because it is patently absurd to give local regulators the power to make regulations that to conflict with the laws of the 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 Sun Apr 14 13:18:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E3Hfs03082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:17:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.netcabo.pt (smtp.netcabo.pt [212.113.174.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3E3HZH03078 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 13:17:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from netcabo.pt ([213.22.98.171]) by smtp.netcabo.pt with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:05:32 +0100 Message-ID: <3CB8F248.4080505@netcabo.pt> Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 04:06:48 +0100 From: "Lino =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tralh=E3o?= (NETCABO)" 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: [BLML] laws 25b? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2002 03:05:32.0972 (UTC) FILETIME=[3DB576C0:01C1E361] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk South have: S - J H - Qxx D - XXX C - AKQxxx After 3 passes, S bids 3C and his partner presents the alert card. Seeing the alert card presentation by his partner, he realises that his partner understood his bid of 3C as (convention) weak with diamonds or strong with a major. So he calls the Director to change his opening bid -- he intents to change his bid to 2NT (weak with clubs or strong with diamonds). The convention card tells nothing about this. what to do? Lino Tralhão -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 15:43:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E5gGb03143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:42:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3E5gAH03139 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:42:11 +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 g3E5V9x24699 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 06:31:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 05:58:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200204140134.VAA02539@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200204140134.VAA02539@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 <200204140134.VAA02539@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> >And if we do adjust, what is the "irregularity" for purposes of L12C2? > >> From: David Stevenson >> The insufficient bid . > >If everyone agrees with this, I think the problem is solved. > >Imagine the following procedure. (You would not necessarily proceed >exactly this way in a real case, but I'm trying to make things clear.) >_Always_ adjust under L27B1b. We know how to do that: apply L12C2, >_starting at the instant just before the IB._ Figure out the >"probable" and "at all likely" results per L12C2, then compare to the >actual result at the table. If the OS does better than the "at all >likely" result, adjust for them. If the NOS does worse than the >"probable" result, adjust for them. > >Of course you treat any L16A problems from remarks, etc., separately, in >the usual way. But if there is no such UI, partner of the IB'er can do >whatever he wants, including guessing what the IB'er really intended. >That is, if the _only_ irregularity is the IB and not something that >happens later, the _only_ adjustment one can make is the one above. One >cannot adjust for something the IB'ers partner does if it isn't at least >an irregularity. > >I think the problem is that not everyone agrees that the IB is the only >irregularity. If IB'ers partner is under some kind of restrictions, for >example, if the IB were UI, violating those restrictions would be an >irregularity (or infraction), and the adjustment would be different. > >I can't find anything that restricts the actions of the IB'ers partner, >given that L16C2 explicitly does not apply. I agree with all this. However I don't understand why IBer bid only 2H, because the withdrawn call has UI implications even if UI is not present. If the opener sees 1H 2H then he should be thinking "Hang on pard didn't bash 4, so he hasn't got a 4H bid" and there is UI because of the *possibility* that pard *has* got a 4H bid. I don't allow the 4H bid on these grounds. Now the TD, if he has explained that pard must be looking at 1H 2H as if this auction had occurred IRL and partner still bids 2H, then the 4H bid can be based on a guess that pard *actually* has a 1H opener - and this is *still* UI. So unless the TD *has* explained this, he is *in error*. cheers john >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 16:28:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E6RhU03264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:27:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3E6RbH03258 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:27:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g3E6Hn516282 for ; Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:17:49 -0800 Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 22:14:08 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] How to be an ethical director Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is only sort of a question about the Laws. I think however it may be of interest to several on this list. I, like many ACBL directors who don't work big tournaments, never receive any official guidance as to how to interpret the laws. I just have a copy of the law book, and a copy of the ACBL regulations. Unlike many directors in similar circumstances, I do read BLML. As I result, I sometimes receive information about WBF Laws Commission interpretations I would otherwise never learn of (not until a new law book was printed anyway!) Suppose I receive information about a WBF decision that I happen to believe from my own reading of the laws is wrong, even after I review the WBFLC's minutes, read the discussions on BLML, and so on. Is it my duty as an ACBL director and All-around Good Person (tm) to enforce the law as I believe it really is, or as I happen to have overheard some people halfway round the world from me say it is? Why? 2nd question: What if the information I receive from the WBF via BLML happens to contradict something that appears in the policy of the ACBL? (Yes, both of these have happened to me. No, I don't care to reopen a discussion about the items in question #1. Yes, the ACBL's policy in #2 has since been amended.) GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 14 17:36:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E7ZwD03327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:35:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3E7ZoH03320 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:35:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.44.147] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16weIM-0008FE-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:19:31 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c1e385$91b50640$932ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "=?Windows-1252?Q?Lino_Tralh=E3o_\=28NETCABO\=29?=" , References: <3CB8F248.4080505@netcabo.pt> Subject: Re: [BLML] laws 25b? Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:24:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 4:06 AM Subject: [BLML] laws 25b? > South have: > S - J > H - Qxx > D - XXX > C - AKQxxx > > After 3 passes, S bids 3C and his partner presents the alert card. > Seeing the alert card presentation by his partner, he realises that his > partner understood his bid of 3C as (convention) weak with diamonds or > strong with a major. So he calls the Director to change his opening bid > -- he intents to change his bid to 2NT (weak with clubs or strong with > diamonds). > The convention card tells nothing about this. > > what to do? > > Lino Tralhão > +=+ WBF Laws Committee minute of 20th January 2000: "the committee recorded its decision that information received from the action of any other player after a call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change a call." Do not allow the 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 Sun Apr 14 17:36:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E7Zus03326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:35:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3E7ZnH03317 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 17:35:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.44.147] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16weIK-0008FE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:19:29 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c1e385$90a0d720$932ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <001001c1e320$2c51c6e0$8249e150@dodona> <006801c1e32a$f20aa500$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 08:15:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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, April 13, 2002 9:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > The powers decided in 1990 that > > Law 80F applies to regulations made under Law 80F > > - it does not restrict regulations authorized by other > > sections of the laws (e.g. 40D, 80E etc.). > > What powers were those, and where is it written, please? > +=+ The WBF Executive Committee meeting jointly with the WBF Rules & Regulations Committee.+=+ > > > This decision has since been relied upon by the > > ACBL, the EBL, and the WBF itself, plus some NBOs. > > But not, SFAIK, approved by the WBF Laws Commission. > +=+ The WBF Laws Committee is not required to approve a decision by its parent body. It has noted the decision in its Minutes on more than one occasion; which puts it on public record. +=+ > > L80F - to publish or announce regulations supplementary > to a law, but not in conflict with it. > +=+ Correctly stated this says: "to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, *these laws*." A regulation authorized by Law 40D is not "in conflict with these 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 Sun Apr 14 18:23:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3E8NN803360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:23:23 +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 g3E8NHH03356 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 18:23:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3257.bb.online.no [80.212.220.185]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA27599 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:11:58 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002701c1e38c$0c797ea0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] How to be an ethical director Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:11:58 +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 From: "Gordon Bower" > This is only sort of a question about the Laws. I think however it may be > of interest to several on this list. > > I, like many ACBL directors who don't work big tournaments, never receive > any official guidance as to how to interpret the laws. I just have a copy > of the law book, and a copy of the ACBL regulations. > > Unlike many directors in similar circumstances, I do read BLML. As I > result, I sometimes receive information about WBF Laws Commission > interpretations I would otherwise never learn of (not until a new law book > was printed anyway!) > > Suppose I receive information about a WBF decision that I happen to > believe from my own reading of the laws is wrong, even after I review the > WBFLC's minutes, read the discussions on BLML, and so on. > > Is it my duty as an ACBL director and All-around Good Person (tm) to > enforce the law as I believe it really is, or as I happen to have > overheard some people halfway round the world from me say it is? Why? > > 2nd question: What if the information I receive from the WBF via BLML > happens to contradict something that appears in the policy of the ACBL? > > (Yes, both of these have happened to me. No, I don't care to reopen a > discussion about the items in question #1. Yes, the ACBL's policy in #2 > has since been amended.) I can only answer for myself, but the way BLML works, even when there is information coming from members of the WBFLC or other authorities, I cannot see BLML as an instrument for WBFLC or any other official institution of bridge. BLML has not been announced as such, and the information is presented as opinions from individuals which I find most valuable, but my ruling in any actual case will always be according to my own understanding of the laws (after evaluating among other things also opinions seen on BLML) only governed by instructions received officially from appropriate institutions. (BLML entries has in some cases made me approach my NBO with questions, the same way I do when I face other problems I feel unanswered in laws or regulations) Does that answer your question? 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 Apr 15 01:28:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3EFRoF03597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:27:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3EFReH03589 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:27:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.85.80] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wlex-0002Cj-00; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:11:20 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c1e3c7$7b9a6e80$5055e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Wayne Burrows" , References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop><37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk><003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <009501c1e35a$0b527680$f116b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:24:25 +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: Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 3:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > Because it is patently absurd to give local regulators the > power to make regulations that to conflict with the laws > of the game. > +=+ "It is absurd to expect to be enlightened by Reason, and at the same time to prescribe to her what side of the question she must adopt." [Immanuel Kant] +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 01:28:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3EFRil03592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:27:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3EFRcH03586 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 01:27:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.85.80] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16wlev-0002Cj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 16:11:18 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 09:17:18 +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: Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 12:00 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Grattan Endicott writes > > > To find out what a Law means, surely it is best > to get a simple case and find out what it does there. > We have a case where 4H would be expected to be > reached by nearly every pair. We have a case where > nothing else untoward happened - there was no TD > error, nor extraneous information from comments. > +=+ I do not recall having seen the hand on which the insufficient bid was made. Without that it is questionable whether these statements are entirely justified. +=+ > > 4H was reached by 1H P 1H/2H P 4H on > a complete minimum. Does the Law tell us to adjust? > > Then, when we know the answer to this for certain, > we have a basis to look at more complicated cases, > where 4H is not routine for example. > > Now, as I read the above paragraph, you are saying > you would not adjust, ie the 4H bid is acceptable. > Please confirm this. > +=+ Such a decision can only be made knowing the hands. I would adjust if I thought the hands combined might easily land in some other contract than 4H [as, for example, 3H, 3NT, 5H, 6H with whatever these possibilities implied]. I would remind the 4H bidder that when first called I had explained to him that he could not make use of the information from the remark. I would consider whether the jump to 4H was designed to close the auction so that partner would not bid again. I would examine whether I thought that after the jump to 4H partner, with much more than the minimum that his insufficient bid might imply, should be expected to bid on. Again these considerations could lead me not to leave the score stand. No, the 4H bid is based on information from the remark, not from the insufficient bid, so it is not 'acceptable'. Whether there is damage has to be ascertained. The auction has proceeded "as though the irregularity had not occurred" and the implications of the auction must be considered. I question whether the responder's pass is to be justified when he has a full opening bid. ~ 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 Apr 15 03:46:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3EHjST03685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 03:45:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3EHjLH03681 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 03:45:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3257.bb.online.no [80.212.220.185]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA17772 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 19:34:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 19:33:56 +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" > From: "David Stevenson" > > To find out what a Law means, surely it is best > > to get a simple case and find out what it does there. > > We have a case where 4H would be expected to be > > reached by nearly every pair. We have a case where > > nothing else untoward happened - there was no TD > > error, nor extraneous information from comments. > > > +=+ I do not recall having seen the hand on which > the insufficient bid was made. Without that it is > questionable whether these statements are > entirely justified. +=+ > > > > 4H was reached by 1H P 1H/2H P 4H on > > a complete minimum. Does the Law tell us to adjust? Nor can I remember having seen any actual hands, but I feel that Davids question was clear enough to be answered generally. However, please let me post this example and ask for a ruling: West East Axx xx KQxxx AJxxx Kxx Axxx xx KQ Auction (N-S pass all the time) West - East 1H - 1H* corrected to 2H 4H - pass No more beating around the bush, shall we allow the 4H bid? If so shall we accept pass from East after 4H or adjust the score as if East had continued towards slam? The Director has given all the information required so there is no reason to question possible TD error, and there are no extraneous remarks. (And if that information is essential: 2H on its own would have shown a simple raise with 6-9HCP). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 05:13:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3EJDIj03786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 05:13:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3EJDCH03782 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 05:13:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3EJ1uM09846; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:01:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 14:55:24 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> Message-ID: <20020414150158-R01050000-910AF700-4FB8-11D6-A202-C50DEE38C18A-0910-0108@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 4/14/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: > the 4H bid is based on information from >the remark What remark? 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE Web site: http://home.rochester.rr.com/anchorage What we see the people of Kabul celebrating this week is called"freedom." Be thankful for ours. And guard it well. - Vin Suprynowicz - November 26, 2001 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 05:49:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3EJmf803804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 05:48:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from michael.gym ([193.170.68.244]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3EJmaH03800 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 05:48:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from pp-xp (petrus2.konvent [192.168.1.116]) by michael.gym (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA01777 for ; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 21:34:43 -0400 From: Petrus Schuster OSB To: BLML Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 21:37:17 +0200 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-Id: Subject: Re: [BLML] How to be an ethical director MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Mailer: Opera 6.01 build 1041 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Am 14.04.2002 08:14:08, schrieb Gordon Bower : >Is it my duty as an ACBL director and All-around Good Person (tm) to >enforce the law as I believe it really is, or as I happen to have >overheard some people halfway round the world from me say it is? Why? > >2nd question: What if the information I receive from the WBF via BLML >happens to contradict something that appears in the policy of the ACBL? > IMO, it is your duty to enforce the law the way the ACBL as your NBO tells you to enforce it. Should you feel the ACBL to be wrong in their interpretation, you should work to have it changed but feel duty-bound to enforce it while it is in force. WBF decisions are IMO addressed primarily to the ZOs who promulgate them to their affiliated NBOs who decide when and how to put them in force in their jurisdictions. While this may be cumbersome, I think it is necessary to ensure that the law is the same and applied the same way within a NBO. Admittedly, my views may be jaundiced by 22 years as an administrator.... 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 Apr 15 06:03:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3EK3hr03824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 06:03:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3EK3bH03820 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 06:03:37 +1000 (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 16wq2x-000LLy-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Apr 2002 20:52:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 02:06:44 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <00b601c1e32d$38b983c0$8249e150@dodona> <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop> In-Reply-To: <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >> > They have forgotton (or worse ignored) L80F which does >> > not allow regulations in conflict with the laws and here a >> > conflick exists with what is plainly written in L40A. >> +=+ This, Wayne, is your interpretation of the laws. You >> are entitled to your opinion, but in terms of the >> administration of the game they are immaterial. The >> matter has been decided for you. >Interpretation maybe but only the interpretation that a rational reading of >the laws would come to without a knowledge of some convoluted interpretation >that has been made and ineffectively promulgated. Ok, you have had your rant. We have tried to explain why you are wrong, and you have just gone on. The rest of the world is wrong, and Wayne is right. OK, so be it. But why you really want to spoil the game for others just because you cannot see a simple interpretation, or perhaps because you do not want to see a simple interpretation, is beyond me. >Why not simply revise the laws so that they say what they mean. Because when they are revised you will still disagree with what others interpret them as. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 07:16:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3ELFZ103861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:15:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3ELFUH03857 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:15:31 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 7514 invoked by uid 504); 14 Apr 2002 21:04:15 -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 0.97201 secs); 14 Apr 2002 21:04:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.200) by 0 with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 21:04:14 -0000 Message-ID: <00ee01c1e3f7$547eade0$8c16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Grattan Endicott" , References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <001001c1e320$2c51c6e0$8249e150@dodona> <006801c1e32a$f20aa500$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <003101c1e385$90a0d720$932ce150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:59:53 +1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 7:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > +=+ Correctly stated this says: "to publish or announce > regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, > *these laws*." A regulation authorized by Law 40D is > not "in conflict with these laws". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And one that takes away the rights given in L40A is. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 07:17:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3ELHgn03873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:17:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morenet.net.nz (mail.morenet.net.nz [210.185.31.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g3ELHbH03869 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:17:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 8796 invoked by uid 504); 14 Apr 2002 21:06:22 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.16521 secs); 14 Apr 2002 21:06:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.200) by 0 with SMTP; 14 Apr 2002 21:06:21 -0000 Message-ID: <00fc01c1e3f7$a01f07e0$8c16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020322133722.00b5dcc0@pop.starpower.net><007f01c1d1dc$1c117140$b116b9d2@laptop> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:02:01 +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: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > Wayne Burrows writes > > >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. > > Well, that argument is, anyway. > > OK, so you consider more important to follow your view of the rules > than to allow people to enjoy themselves. I am not impressed. > Others clearly do so why should I be any different. > >It is time the WBF stood up to these SO rather than make unconvincing > >convoluted arguments allowing these ludicrous regulations. > > Or possibly that people like you allowed countries to make regs that > are what their players want. > I am not sure I understand this sentence but I did not allow and I cannot disallow any country to make any regulations and as for what people want - I don't recall people being asked what they want just regulations being precipitated from above. Those regulations are often not easy to understand either motivationally or practically. 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 Apr 15 09:55:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3ENtRl03940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:55:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3ENtLH03936 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:55:21 +1000 (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 16wtfB-000P9t-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:44:09 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:57:06 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Gordon Bower writes >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 have checked up, and apparently all opening bids **in pairs games** in 1st and 2nd seat must have at least 18 Opening points [#], ie be subject to the Rule of 18. No such rule applies in teams or individuals. In novice pairs events the organiser may apply this rule to 3rd and 4th position but in practice rarely does. Since this is the only rule about psyching it is legal to open xx AKx KQxx Jxxx with 1S as a psyche, since it has 21 Opening points. Many thanks to my Austrian contact. [#] The term Opening points is used in Australia. I wish it was used generally, because there are so many "Rule of" definitions. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 09:55:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3ENtGU03934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:55:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3ENtBH03930 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:55:12 +1000 (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 16wtf3-000P9p-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:43:59 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 22:26:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <200204140134.VAA02539@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >I agree with all this. However I don't understand why IBer bid only 2H, >because the withdrawn call has UI implications even if UI is not >present. If the opener sees 1H 2H then he should be thinking "Hang on >pard didn't bash 4, so he hasn't got a 4H bid" and there is UI because >of the *possibility* that pard *has* got a 4H bid. No, it is not UI. The bid he made is not UI - how can it be? > I don't allow the 4H >bid on these grounds. Now the TD, if he has explained that pard must be >looking at 1H 2H as if this auction had occurred IRL and partner still >bids 2H, then the 4H bid can be based on a guess that pard *actually* >has a 1H opener - and this is *still* UI. So unless the TD *has* >explained this, he is *in error*. The TD is not required to explain the wrong thing - *that* would be TD error. You cannot suggest seriously that it is UI that partner bid 2H or that the TD should say so. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 17:06:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F74lN04152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:04:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3F74fH04148 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:04:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.142.2] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16x0MH-0003aA-00; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:53:01 +0100 Message-ID: <005301c1e44a$617d50c0$028e403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020414150158-R01050000-910AF700-4FB8-11D6-A202-C50DEE38C18A-0910-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:53:24 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Grattan Endicott" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > On 4/14/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > the 4H bid is based on information from > >the remark > > What remark? > +=+ Whatever told West that his partner had an opening hand. The IB did not do that. So a remark, mannerism, the way he placed the bidding card, what he said to the Director - something conveyed the news. You will realize that having made the IB East may not wish to correct to 4H - opener may have a big hand - so the minimum bid leaves the door open for West to go further. For which reason the Director must think with care when West jumps to game and East with his mountain reads the position. ~ 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 Apr 15 17:22:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F7M9X04173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:22:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3F7M3H04169 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:22:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3F79tH05349 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:09:57 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 15 09:06:09 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGL5EJRCL2001KQ6@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:09:21 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFC2NA>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:09:00 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:09:20 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] laws 25b? To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lino_Tral?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?h=E3o_=28NETCABO=29?= , 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 g3F7M5H04170 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > South have: > > S - J > > H - Qxx > > D - XXX > > C - AKQxxx > > > > After 3 passes, S bids 3C and his partner presents the alert card. > > Seeing the alert card presentation by his partner, he realises > that his > > partner understood his bid of 3C as (convention) weak with > diamonds or > > strong with a major. So he calls the Director to change his > opening bid > > -- he intents to change his bid to 2NT (weak with clubs or strong > with > > diamonds). > > The convention card tells nothing about this. > > > > what to do? > > > > Lino Tralhão > > > +=+ WBF Laws Committee minute of 20th January 2000: > "the committee recorded its decision that information > received from the action of any other player after a call is > made is not authorized for use in deciding to change a > call." > Do not allow the change. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I am aware of a strange discussion started by Jeff Rubens, editor of tBW, saying that the laws are not clear about the status of the information received from partner when a player makes a misbid. In his opinion the laws do not say that the right information about a wrong call in UI. I tried to convince him that the laws are completely clear about that, showing him the examples and footnote in law 75. But he seems to have the right attitude to become a member of BLML, not believing what I am saying, arguing the status of examples and footnotes. Let us be clear, we didn't need this decision from the LC to know what to do in this case. This information is as unauthorized as is possible, that being true for decades already. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 17:29:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F7TPi04188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:29:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3F7TJH04184 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:29:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3F7HxH08281 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:18:05 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 15 09:14:08 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGL5OJJJ34001KQH@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:17:24 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFCJHY>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:17:04 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:17:23 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: "'Sven Pran'" , 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 > It would appear that UI has never (at least over the last 25 > years) been > an issue together with Law27, but that L27 has included its > own rule as > to how the offending side could use information from an > insufficient bid. > > I am still anxiously waiting to see the outcome. > > Sven If you ignore all information not supporting your idea that no outcome has been reached yet you might remain anxiously waiting all your life. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 17:53:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F7qmW04209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:52:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3F7qgH04205 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 17:52:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47042.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.194]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3F7fOx05167 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:41:24 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CBA8460.80304@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:42:24 +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: <20020414150158-R01050000-910AF700-4FB8-11D6-A202-C50DEE38C18A-0910-0108@192.168.1.2> <005301c1e44a$617d50c0$028e403e@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would very much like to have the WBFLC make a pronouncement on this issue: Grattan Endicott wrote: >>> >>What remark? >> >> > +=+ Whatever told West that his partner had > an opening hand. The IB did not do that. So > a remark, mannerism, the way he placed the > bidding card, what he said to the Director - > something conveyed the news. Is Grattan speaking for himself or for the WBF? If for himself, he should realize that it is almost impossible for there not to be any "extra information" arising from the IB. After all, partner also knows (from the TD ruling if nothing else) that the IB was considered "natural" (or 27B1 would not be in effect at all). Side question : I have the habit (after an examination perhaps off the table) to announce to the table that "I am considering the IB as natural". I believe that this is correct, since it re-establishes the equality there ought to be between players who know the Laws and those that don't. Surely this knowledge is now AI to partner ? Which means that in this case, there are fewer possibilities than first enumerated for the meaning of the IB of 1He. What's the problem with having partner know which one it is - certainly he can guess, even if partner were to be completely silent ? > You will realize that having made the IB > East may not wish to correct to 4H - opener > may have a big hand - so the minimum bid > leaves the door open for West to go further. Which is precisely why the Lawmakers wrote L27B1 in the first place. > For which reason the Director must think > with care when West jumps to game and > East with his mountain reads the position. > ~ G ~ +=+ > That is only if you regard the bid of 4He as illegal in the first place. Should the Director, in this example, have instructed West that "he is entitled to know that East was making a natural call when bidding 1He, but that he is not entitled to draw inferences from the statement that East had not seen the opening bid. One more thought. Another thing the players are entitled to is the fact that the TD made his ruling on the basis of L27B, not L27A. West is entitled to know that east was not thinking of raising to 2He and drawing the wrong card. Surely that greatens the possibility that 1He was based on 13+ even further ? > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 15 18:05:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F85Jr04228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:05:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3F85DH04224 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:05:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3F7rwH20413 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:53:58 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 15 09:50:12 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGL6XTYA3G001KRJ@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:53:08 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFCNBW>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:52:47 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:53:07 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Sven Pran'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > From: "David Stevenson" > > > To find out what a Law means, surely it is best > > > to get a simple case and find out what it does there. > > > We have a case where 4H would be expected to be > > > reached by nearly every pair. We have a case where > > > nothing else untoward happened - there was no TD > > > error, nor extraneous information from comments. > > > > > +=+ I do not recall having seen the hand on which > > the insufficient bid was made. Without that it is > > questionable whether these statements are > > entirely justified. +=+ > > > > > > 4H was reached by 1H P 1H/2H P 4H on > > > a complete minimum. Does the Law tell us to adjust? > > Nor can I remember having seen any actual hands, but I > feel that Davids question was clear enough to be > answered generally. However, please let me post this > example and ask for a ruling: > > West East > Axx xx > KQxxx AJxxx > Kxx Axxx > xx KQ > > Auction (N-S pass all the time) > > West - East > 1H - 1H* corrected to 2H > 4H - pass > > No more beating around the bush, shall we allow the > 4H bid? That is not the right question, there is no option but to accept the 4H-bid. If so shall we accept pass from East after 4H > or adjust the score as if East had continued towards > slam? There is no option but to accept the pass from East. > The Director has given all the information required so > there is no reason to question possible TD error, and > there are no extraneous remarks. > (And if that information is essential: 2H on its own > would have shown a simple raise with 6-9HCP). That information is not essential. Once more dear Sven: there is no UI and since we have nothing in between, all the information from this withdrawn call is authorized (I am not talking about all the remarks made). What the TD has to do is to decide whether the opponents are damaged by the insufficient bid, even when it did not carry UI. And then my answer in your example is 'no' they are not. A capable pair will not end in 6H after for example 1H - 2D - 2H/2NT or 1H - 3NT showing this kind of hand. And even when in a teams event the other table has reached 6H I will be very reluctant to make it a wash. Probably the poor bidding has resulted in the bad score, not the 'normal' bidding at the 'offending' table. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 18:28:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F8SLx04273 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:28:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3F8SFH04269 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:28:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3F8H0H29964 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:17:01 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 15 10:13:10 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGL7R1SOTU001KSJ@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:16:41 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFCPP4>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:16:21 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:16:40 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > On 4/14/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > the 4H bid is based on information from > > >the remark > > > > What remark? > > > +=+ Whatever told West that his partner had > an opening hand. The IB did not do that. So > a remark, mannerism, the way he placed the > bidding card, what he said to the Director - > something conveyed the news. > You will realize that having made the IB > East may not wish to correct to 4H - opener > may have a big hand - so the minimum bid > leaves the door open for West to go further. > For which reason the Director must think > with care when West jumps to game and > East with his mountain reads the position. > ~ G ~ +=+ Well Sven, if even 2 members of the WBFLC seem to have different opinions, who is one of them to tell you to shut up (which I tried to say in a less unpolite way). When I open 1H and my partner bids 1H and the TD allows us to continue bidding when partner replaces 1H for 2 H telling that the IB does not carry UI I would be stupid not to take into account the possibility that partner intended to open the biding. So it would be stupid to decide to pass. And if my guess is that he wanted to open, I may bid 4H, even if it is not the best bid to make. Bidding 3H is much better, coping with more possibities, my partner intending to raise 1H to 2H for example. If the latter is the case my partner may decide to pass 3H, even when in the normal auction after 1H - 2H - 3H he would have bid 4H. once more: the main question the TD has to answer is whether without the IB their contract had been another, causing damage to the opponents. Let us assume 1H - 1H (2H) and now LHO decides to double, which he never would have done after 1H - 2D. If 2SX now gives 800 to the offenders I am probably not going to adjust the score. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 18:32:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F8WSm04288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:32:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3F8WMH04284 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:32:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3F8L7H01350 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:21:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 15 10:17:20 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGL7VUKND4001KSD@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:20:34 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFCP6Z>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:20:13 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:20:32 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> The insufficient bid . > > > >If everyone agrees with this, I think the problem is solved. > > > >Imagine the following procedure. (You would not necessarily proceed > >exactly this way in a real case, but I'm trying to make > things clear.) > >_Always_ adjust under L27B1b. We know how to do that: apply L12C2, > >_starting at the instant just before the IB._ Figure out the > >"probable" and "at all likely" results per L12C2, then compare to the > >actual result at the table. If the OS does better than the "at all > >likely" result, adjust for them. If the NOS does worse than the > >"probable" result, adjust for them. > > > >Of course you treat any L16A problems from remarks, etc., > separately, in > >the usual way. But if there is no such UI, partner of the > IB'er can do > >whatever he wants, including guessing what the IB'er really intended. > >That is, if the _only_ irregularity is the IB and not something that > >happens later, the _only_ adjustment one can make is the one > above. One > >cannot adjust for something the IB'ers partner does if it > isn't at least > >an irregularity. > > > >I think the problem is that not everyone agrees that the IB > is the only > >irregularity. If IB'ers partner is under some kind of > restrictions, for > >example, if the IB were UI, violating those restrictions would be an > >irregularity (or infraction), and the adjustment would be different. > > > >I can't find anything that restricts the actions of the > IB'ers partner, > >given that L16C2 explicitly does not apply. > > I agree with all this. However I don't understand why IBer > bid only 2H, > because the withdrawn call has UI implications even if UI is not > present. If the opener sees 1H 2H then he should be thinking "Hang on > pard didn't bash 4, so he hasn't got a 4H bid" and there is UI because > of the *possibility* that pard *has* got a 4H bid. I don't > allow the 4H > bid on these grounds. Now the TD, if he has explained that > pard must be > looking at 1H 2H as if this auction had occurred IRL and partner still > bids 2H, then the 4H bid can be based on a guess that pard *actually* > has a 1H opener - and this is *still* UI. So unless the TD *has* > explained this, he is *in error*. cheers john > >-- > >============================================================= > =========== > >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > the message. > >A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > -- > > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq > 10810798 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 18:47:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F8ld804308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:47:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3F8lXH04304 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:47:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3F8aKH05769 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:36:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 15 10:32:34 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGL8FK76I6001K0J@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:35:40 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFCRKW>; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:35:20 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:35:37 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: "Kooijman, A." , "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I agree with all this. However I don't understand why IBer > > bid only 2H, > > because the withdrawn call has UI implications even if UI is not > > present. Should I understand this? Even after Easter I can't resist a 'You too, John?' If the opener sees 1H 2H then he should be > thinking "Hang on > > pard didn't bash 4, so he hasn't got a 4H bid" and there is > UI because > > of the *possibility* that pard *has* got a 4H bid. I don't > > allow the 4H > > bid on these grounds. Now the TD, if he has explained that > > pard must be > > looking at 1H 2H as if this auction had occurred IRL This abbreviation is not on my list. The TD should say that the auction continues as if there had not been an irregularity and should add that the information from the bidding so far is authorized (or is not unauthorized). and > partner still > > bids 2H, then the 4H bid can be based on a guess that pard > *actually* > > has a 1H opener - and this is *still* UI. So unless the TD *has* > > explained this, he is *in error*. cheers john Throw it in my cap, cheers too, ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 19:56:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F9tsI04373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:55:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3F9tgH04361 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:55:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3F9iTc17234 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:44:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:44 +0100 (BST) 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: DWS wrote: > I have checked up, and apparently all opening bids **in pairs games** > in 1st and 2nd seat must have at least 18 Opening points [#], ie be > subject to the Rule of 18. No such rule applies in teams or > individuals. In novice pairs events the organiser may apply this rule > to 3rd and 4th position but in practice rarely does. > > Since this is the only rule about psyching it is legal to open > > xx > AKx > KQxx > Jxxx > > with 1S as a psyche, since it has 21 Opening points. > > Many thanks to my Austrian contact. And whoopee do! Who (apart from Plum maybe) would want to psyche a 1S opener on this. The regulation attempts to prevent an opening psyche of 1H on KJT9xx,x,xxxxx,x. 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 Apr 15 19:56:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F9trl04372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:55:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3F9tgH04360 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:55:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3F9iTj17224 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:44:29 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:44 +0100 (BST) 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: DWS 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. > > Not at all. You see to assume [for example] the Austrian reg is not > in the best interest of Austrians. Why not - because you don't like it? I made no statement as to whether the regulations were in the best interest of Austrians. Even Grattan agreed that the regulation as translated was clearly illegal. > There seems a feeling amongst some people in this thread that if NCBOs > have bent the Laws slightly in regulating then that is wrong. But > perhaps the WBF is not prepared to challenge this not through weakness > but because they realise that there is no reason to disagree. > > Just because some BLML members believe the Austrian approach is flawed > legally they seem to conclude that it is not in the best interests of > the game. I do not see why this follows. If the WBF wishes NBOs (or SOs, or whatever) to have the power to effectively ban all psyching then the WBF should change L40A/B to make this power explicit. If not they should act against NBOs who twist L40D beyond all recognition to achieve a similar end. This is generally referred to as "transparency" and is seldom seen as a bad thing. Personally I would be incredibly sad if the right to psyche was no longer enshrined within the rules of the game because I think it is a valuable (if somewhat neglected) part of the bidding art. So while I beg, plead and pray that the WBF will ensure that the freedom to psyche remains I do acknowledge that they have the authority to ban it, and to decide to delegate such authority as they see fit. 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 Apr 15 19:56:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3F9tsk04374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:55:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3F9thH04362 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:55:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3F9iUT17244 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:44:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:44 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) 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: Brian Meadows wrote: > > Especially when someone types "thk". > > > Anyone who does that publicly needs (IMHO) to have it pointed out > to them that such messages should go just to opponents. Why? Once a player has "thk"ed the whole table knows that it is a UI situation and the player's partner knows, without ambiguity, that his actions are thereafter constrained. If you only "thk" your oppos and partner decides it is "technology" delay there is a risk that his subsequent call will seem outrageous to oppos. 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 Apr 15 21:46:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FBjXc04458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:45:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FBjRH04454 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:45:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47042.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.194]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3FBY8x25252 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:34:08 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CBABAEB.40409@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:35:07 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Once again, Tim West-meads wrote: > > If the WBF wishes NBOs (or SOs, or whatever) to have the power to > effectively ban all psyching then the WBF should change L40A/B to make > this power explicit. If not they should act against NBOs who twist L40D > beyond all recognition to achieve a similar end. This is generally > referred to as "transparency" and is seldom seen as a bad thing. > > Personally I would be incredibly sad if the right to psyche was no longer > enshrined within the rules of the game because I think it is a valuable > (if somewhat neglected) part of the bidding art. So while I beg, plead > and pray that the WBF will ensure that the freedom to psyche remains I do > acknowledge that they have the authority to ban it, and to decide to > delegate such authority as they see fit. > This is just a matter of definitions. Opening 1He on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is a psyche. That cannot be forbidden, not even by regulations such as the one described above. Opening 1Sp on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is NOT a psyche. You can call it systemic if you want, or grey area light opening or whatever, but you cannot call it a psyche. It is not a gross misstatement of honour strength. If a rule of 18 is in force then this is prima facie evidence that the pair is playing a HUM. > > 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 Mon Apr 15 22:17:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FCGlU04542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:16:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bean.epix.net (bean.epix.net [199.224.64.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FCGfH04538 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:16:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (hbge-216-37-227-220.dsl.hbge.epix.net [216.37.227.220]) by bean.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g3FC53bZ017615 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:05:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] General Review of the Laws (was Insufficient Bid) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:05:04 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:44 +0100 (BST), you wrote: >In-Reply-To: >Brian Meadows wrote: > >> > Especially when someone types "thk". >> > >> Anyone who does that publicly needs (IMHO) to have it pointed out >> to them that such messages should go just to opponents. > >Why? Once a player has "thk"ed the whole table knows that it is a UI >situation and the player's partner knows, without ambiguity, that his >actions are thereafter constrained. > >If you only "thk" your oppos and partner decides it is "technology" delay >there is a risk that his subsequent call will seem outrageous to oppos. > Because a significant percentage of players would not understand the UI-related Laws if you made them write them out a hundred times each before starting play. The practical course is therefore to send such messages to opps only, and leave partner in as much doubt as possible. If you *know* your partner is competent at handling UI situations, and you *know* that opps also realise that you know it, so that they won't misunderstand your actions, then the best course of action may well be to say 'thk' to the whole table. My fault for not specifically noting the exception, I suppose. 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 Apr 15 22:18:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FCIJ604554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:18:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FCIDH04550 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:18:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3FC6xa27594 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:06:59 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:06 +0100 (BST) 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: <3CBABAEB.40409@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > > Opening 1He on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is a psyche. That cannot be > forbidden, not even by regulations such as the one described above. That, Herman, is the whole point of this debate. Grattan has said that the WBF would not interfere if an NBO (or whatever) introduced a regulation like: Approved conventions: No conventions may be played by a pair whose 1 level opening bids, whether by agreement or not, do not meet the requirements of the rule of 20 on every hand. In other words a pair that wished to psyche occasionally would have to forego every single conventional bid in every auction - a price even I would be unprepared to pay. > Opening 1Sp on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is NOT a psyche. It may be. I would consider it a psyche if opened 2nd in hand by a pair playing Roth-Stone sound openings. In fact I would consider it a psyche by most pairs in most positions - it is certainly not what my partners expect for a 1S opening. > You can call it systemic if you want, or grey area light opening or > whatever, but you cannot call it a psyche. It is not a gross > misstatement of honour strength. It is 7 honour points short of my agreed range - surely that is a gross misstatement. (One or two of my partners might expect something like this nv vs vul in third seat - they would alert.) 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 Apr 15 22:43:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FChIO04634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:43:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FChBH04630 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:43:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16x5eI-0007ed-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:31:58 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:32:06 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$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 02:46 PM 4/12/02, David wrote: > Mind you, it is important to answer reasonably helpfully. When asked >what 4NT means, the suggestion "asking for aces" seems pretty poor in >this day and age. I am quite sure than an ethical player will always >feel duty bound to say what form of Blackwood they are playing. You'd think so, wouldn't you. But at a Nationals a few years ago I faced a top pair of U.S. lady internationalists. They bid to a slam, and at the end of the auction I asked what their 4NT bid had been. I was given the one-word reply, "Blackwood." When the smoke cleared, the slam had made, but would have been beaten had I played my partner to hold an ace that he "couldn't" have, but did. It turned out that the ladies were actually playing the 14-30 variation of Roman Key Card Blackwood. I called the TD, suggesting that I had been the victim of misinformation. The ladies argued that I had failed to protect myself by inquiring further as to which type of "Blackwood" they were referring to, and the TD accepted their argument without much thought and ruled in their favor. I appealed, but was told by the screening director (now very highly placed within the ACBL directorial hierarchy) that the ruling was automatic and I would almost surely lose my $50 (with nothing really at stake, I dropped the appeal). I would suggest that "Blackwood" is a far less ethical reply even than would be "asking for aces". So while David and I may agree as to what is obviously ethical in this situation, the ACBL seems to have other ideas. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 23:03:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FD3G604654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:03:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mxout1.netvision.net.il (mxout1.netvision.net.il [194.90.9.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FD37H04650 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:03:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.77.237]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUM003IT123NB@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:51:42 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:53:22 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, David Stevenson Cc: John Probst , Sven Pran , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <005801c1e484$e9dbd9c0$ed4d003e@mycomputer> 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: <200204140134.VAA02539@cfa183.harvard.edu> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:26 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > John (MadDog) Probst writes > > >> > No, it is not UI. The bid he made is not UI - how can it be? > > > I *. > > The TD is not required to explain the wrong thing - *that* would be TD > error. You cannot suggest seriously that it is UI that partner bid 2H > or that the TD should say so. > I.E> I think that John is serious and IMNHO 'right' but of course he is 'legally wrong'. Having admitted that you are 'legally right' may I ask you. 1]The bidding goes 1H - p- -2 H * Oh I have a 1H opener 2]or 1H - p--* 1H Oh I haven't seen you opened > --No you don't have to explain again the legal difference ,just explain the reason why as E I am so much better off in ex.2. Best regards Israel > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 15 23:08:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FD7ur04670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:07:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FD7mH04666 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:07:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16x627-0003nF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:56:35 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415084211.00b11310@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 08:56:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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 06:22 PM 4/12/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > >At 06:28 AM 3/25/02, twm wrote: > > >>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. > > What do they want to fight for? It is a reasonable presumption that >the authorities in NAmerica have some idea what is good for NAmerican >players. Why should an international organisation based in Paris want >to tell NAmerica how to regulate? Why should any international law-making authority want the laws they promulgate to be followed? Of course, for the WBF to have any reason to *want* to tell North America how to regulate, they would have to believe that their reasonable presumption, reasonable though it may be, is simply wrong. Which, as I have suggested, would pose something of a moral dilemma. So one can hardly blame them for not wanting to take a close look at the evidence for their reasonable presumption, which could only stir up trouble. 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 Apr 15 23:16:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FDGaq04692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:16:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.de [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g3FDGSH04688 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:16:28 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200204151316.g3FDGSH04688@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 14135 invoked by uid 0); 15 Apr 2002 13:05:05 -0000 Received: from pd954cff7.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.84.207.247) by mail.gmx.net (mp011-rz3) with SMTP; 15 Apr 2002 13:05:05 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:02:11 +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 (fwd) In-reply-to: <3CBABAEB.40409@village.uunet.be> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.12b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Herman, On 15 Apr 02, at 13:35, Herman De Wael wrote: > > This is just a matter of definitions. > > Opening 1He on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is a psyche. That cannot be > forbidden, not even by regulations such as the one described above. Aehm, this psyche is highly forbidden in Italy in all tourneys with the exeption of the national championship for teams. In Italy you are absolutely not allowed to psych an opeing if you have less than 8 points at the first level or less then 5 points at the second level. I wonder a lot about what direction of this thread took ending to the discussion if conventional bids are forbidden, it started about forbidding natural psychs. Maybe we should cahnge the preface to the laws in which we would read: "this is the way how the WBF-Suggestions Commitee thinks Bridge should be played, make the best out of it" :-) ciao stefan filonardi 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 Apr 15 23:36:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FDaDp04709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:36:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FDa5H04705 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:36:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16x6TU-0000oF-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:24:53 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415090557.00aaacc0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:25:01 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@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 06:30 PM 4/12/02, David wrote: > You cannot be suggesting that local regs are not permitted in Olympic >sports! All sports have overall rules and local rules, as do >mindsports. Of course, whether the distinction as to which rules must >be overall would be acceptable to the Olympic authorities is another >matter, but certainly to presume no local regs are acceptable cannot be >the case. > > Consider promotion and relegation in hockey leagues: I am sure the >rules are not the same in Peshawar as in Seoul. Yet hockey is, I >believe, an Olympic sport. Hockey is not analogous, for two reasons: (1) There is no international governing body not directly affiliated with the Olympics (i.e. nothing analogous to the WBF). (2) Olympic hockey teams (at least in the U.S. and Canada) are simply named; there are no "qualifying events". Players are not "in competition" for Olympic medals until they reach the Olympic venue. Consider figure skating, also an Olympic event. They have an international governing body which is made up of affiliated national organizations. It tells those national organizations how many skaters they may send to the Olympics (based on the country's performance in previous Olympic and international events), and those skaters qualify based on performance in national and lower-level international events. This would seem to be a much closer analogy. There the rule is that any competition run by a national organization which may effect who qualifies must be run by exactly the same rules as those used in the Olympics. I admit that I do not know whether this requirement is established by the IOC or by the international figure skating authority itself, but the former certainly wouldn't surprise 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 Apr 15 23:52:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FDqdP04729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:52:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FDqUH04725 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:52:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47042.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.194]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3FDcMx10590 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:38:22 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CBAD809.8000609@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:39:21 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) 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: <3CBABAEB.40409@village.uunet.be> > Herman wrote: > >>Opening 1He on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is a psyche. That cannot be >>forbidden, not even by regulations such as the one described above. >> > > That, Herman, is the whole point of this debate. Grattan has said that > the WBF would not interfere if an NBO (or whatever) introduced a > regulation like: > > Approved conventions: No conventions may be played by a pair whose > 1 level opening bids, whether by agreement or not, do not meet the > requirements of the rule of 20 on every hand. In other words a pair that > wished to psyche occasionally would have to forego every single > conventional bid in every auction - a price even I would be unprepared to > pay. > Well, the SO writing that regulation would indeed be contrary to the spirit of bridge as I know it. > >>Opening 1Sp on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is NOT a psyche. >> > > It may be. I would consider it a psyche if opened 2nd in hand by a pair > playing Roth-Stone sound openings. In fact I would consider it a psyche > by most pairs in most positions - it is certainly not what my partners > expect for a 1S opening. > Indeed it would be a psyche for a beginner, but not for someone who would open regularly on, say : KQxxxx x Jxxxxx - > >>You can call it systemic if you want, or grey area light opening or >>whatever, but you cannot call it a psyche. It is not a gross >>misstatement of honour strength. >> > > It is 7 honour points short of my agreed range - surely that is a gross > misstatement. (One or two of my partners might expect something like this > nv vs vul in third seat - they would alert.) > > 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 Apr 16 00:09:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FE9U304752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:09:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FE9MH04748 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:09:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16x6zh-0007cj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:58:09 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415093731.00aa64e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:58:14 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: References: <007f01c1d1dc$1c117140$b116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020322133722.00b5dcc0@pop.starpower.net> <007f01c1d1dc$1c117140$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 05:37 PM 4/12/02, David wrote: >richard willey writes > > >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. > > No doubt true, but so what? Just because the Austrians feel something >is best for their members does not mean they are then going to act as >total idiots because they can. > > I doubt there is anything in the Law book to stop the Austrians from >banning gay women, or people wearing ties, or people whose last name >begins with E. But to assume that they will do so is fairly silly, and >does not get this argument anywhere sensible. In the late 1950s, as now, there was nothing in TFLB to stop the ACBL from banning black people. While they did not do so for all of North America, they permitted their affiliated local units to do so freely, which many did. On at least two occasions, when individual units voted to open their competitions to blacks, the ACBL allowed members of those units to "secede", forming new units for the express purpose of continuing to run events from which blacks were excluded. This situation continued until the Civil Rights Act of 1965 made it a violation of U.S. Law. The ACBL at the time used exactly the same argument: "We presume that our local affiliates know what is best for their own members, and we do not choose to interfere." Today they will readily admit that that was a morally bankrupt position. There may be a lesson to be learned from this. Nobody has suggested that the WBF does not have the power to permit the Austrians to ban psychs. But many here have argued that they have a moral obligation to amend L40 either to make the existing loophole explicit or to close it; they should not compromise their authority just because the most comfortable thing to do right now is look the other 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 Tue Apr 16 00:31:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FEVIl04781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:31:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FEVCH04777 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:31:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3FEJuM21458 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:19:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 09:56:13 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <005301c1e44a$617d50c0$028e403e@dodona> Message-ID: <20020415101958-R01050000-56599B00-505A-11D6-A20A-0011D6199FE7-0910-0108@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 4/15/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Whatever told West that his partner had >an opening hand. The IB did not do that. So >a remark, mannerism, the way he placed the >bidding card, what he said to the Director - >something conveyed the news. "Why did partner make the only correction that would allow me to say anything but pass? Either he has a simple raise, or he has some reason to give me room to bid on." Is a jump to game with a minimum opener the right call on that logic? I dunno. Does "principle of fast arrival" apply here, or not? At the table, (absent all this discussion ) I would probably bid the game. If it turns out partner only had the simple raise, then we got stuffed by the IB. Breaks of the game. But for the rules to allow me to judge what to do, and then penalize me for using that judgement, just seems wrong. > You will realize that having made the IB >East may not wish to correct to 4H - opener >may have a big hand - so the minimum bid >leaves the door open for West to go further. >For which reason the Director must think >with care when West jumps to game and >East with his mountain reads the position. Uh, huh. I *have* thought "with care", and I don't reach the same conclusion you do. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 16 00:43:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FEh2H04810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:43:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FEgvH04806 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:42:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16x7WC-00077V-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:31:44 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415102117.00aa3390@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:31:53 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <006801c1e32a$f20aa500$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <001001c1e320$2c51c6e0$8249e150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:36 PM 4/13/02, Marvin wrote: >This is equivalent to saying, "A supplementary regulation pertaining to >a law may be established by an SO, provided the regulation does not >conflict with that law, although it may conflict with other laws." > > > This decision has since been relied upon by the > > ACBL, the EBL, and the WBF itself, plus some NBOs. > >But not, SFAIK, approved by the WBF Laws Commission. > >L80 - Sponsoring organization's duties and powers: > >L80F - > >to publish or announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict >with, these Laws. > >L80E - > >to establish conditions for bidding and play.... > >How any reasonable, reasoning person can think that an SO can legally >create a regulation per L80E that conflicts with the Laws merely by >saying "We're doing this under L80E, not under L80F," is beyond me. Why >not just be honest and say, "We don't give a damn what the Laws permit, >we're doing it anyway." Then I suggest that L80F be changed to read: > >L80F - to publish or announce regulations supplementary to a law, but >not in conflict with it. Why mince words? We'd only find ourselves with a long thread on what the lawmakers meant by "supplementary" and "conflict". If the WBF truly believes that affiliated member organizations can be presumed to know what best serves their own members, why not just "L80F - to publish or announce any regulations whatsoever, notwithstanding any other laws contained herein"? If that is really their position, they should abjure "weasel words" and just say so straight out, which would end this discussion forever. 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 Apr 16 01:00:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FF0Hs04830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:00:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3FF0CH04826 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:00:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3FEmuM23614; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:48:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:27:23 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: <20020415104858-R01050000-637888FF-505E-11D6-A20A-0011D6199FE7-0910-0108@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 4/15/02, Eric Landau wrote: >I would suggest that "Blackwood" is a far less ethical reply even than >would be "asking for aces". So while David and I may agree as to what >is obviously ethical in this situation, the ACBL seems to have other ideas. The alert regs say something to the effect that experienced pairs are expected to protect themselves, and I have some sympathy for that , but they also state specifically that naming a convention is *not* an acceptable explanation. Anybody playing at that level ought to be aware of that. Also, the ACBL has their "active ethics" policy in place. Given that, it seems to me that their failure to properly explain is a far greater transgression then your failure to protect yourself. One has to wonder if the ACBL disagrees with that, and if so, why. And if not, why their TDs don't follow ACBL policy. 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 16 01:26:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FFPRY04910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:25:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-m03.mx.aol.com (imo-m03.mx.aol.com [64.12.136.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FFPMH04906 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:25:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from Arbhuston@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id s.150.c55569c (4210); Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:13:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Arbhuston@aol.com Message-ID: <150.c55569c.29ec4837@aol.com> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:13:59 EDT Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: cyaxares@lineone.net CC: 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 Grattan, It seems very likely that there was such UI as would give the opener reason to believe his partner had an opening hand, but what if there wasn't? What if opener just guessed that his partner had such a hand? For example, red at IMPs wouldn't many players make this guess? Isn't this the adjustment problem here? 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 Tue Apr 16 01:37:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FFbT904940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:37:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FFbOH04936 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 01:37:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16x8Mt-00042D-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:26:11 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415110342.00aa0560@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:26:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: References: <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop> <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <00b601c1e32d$38b983c0$8249e150@dodona> <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@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 09:06 PM 4/13/02, David wrote: >Wayne Burrows writes > > >Interpretation maybe but only the interpretation that a rational > reading of > >the laws would come to without a knowledge of some convoluted > interpretation > >that has been made and ineffectively promulgated. > > Ok, you have had your rant. We have tried to explain why you are >wrong, and you have just gone on. > > The rest of the world is wrong, and Wayne is right. OK, so be it. > > But why you really want to spoil the game for others just because you >cannot see a simple interpretation, or perhaps because you do not want >to see a simple interpretation, is beyond me. > > >Why not simply revise the laws so that they say what they mean. > > Because when they are revised you will still disagree with what others >interpret them as. I think David is being a bit too harsh on Wayne. David is certainly correct that there is no question as to the legality of the Austrian ban on psychs, or the ACBL's ban on the 9-point 1NT opening. The WBF has addressed the question, and has pronounced upon it. End of discussion (at least with respect to the current state of the Law). But Wayne is correct as well. There is no way in h--l that someone simply reading TFLB with no knowledge of the existence, much less substance, of the WBF promulgation on the subject would come to the conclusion that the legality of the Austrian or ACBL regs was in any sense obvious, or even suggested. I do not, of course, believe that "the rest of the world is wrong, and Wayne is right". But neither do I beleive that the rest of the world is right, and Wayne is wrong. To be realistic, David should have said that the WBF and those that are privy to its workings are right, and the rest of the world, Wayne included, are wrong. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 02:07:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FG6kV04999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:06:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FG6fH04995 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:06:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16x8p9-00030x-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:55:23 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415113704.00aa03b0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:55:32 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <00fc01c1e3f7$a01f07e0$8c16b9d2@laptop> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020322133722.00b5dcc0@pop.starpower.net> <007f01c1d1dc$1c117140$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 05:02 PM 4/14/02, Wayne wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson > > > Wayne Burrows writes > > > >It is time the WBF stood up to these SO rather than make unconvincing > > >convoluted arguments allowing these ludicrous regulations. > > > > Or possibly that people like you allowed countries to make regs that > > are what their players want. > >I am not sure I understand this sentence but I did not allow and I cannot >disallow any country to make any regulations and as for what people >want - I >don't recall people being asked what they want just regulations being >precipitated from above. Those regulations are often not easy to >understand >either motivationally or practically. I offer two statements: (1) The WBF should "allow[] countries to make regs that are what their players want". (2) When a country makes a reg, the WBF should act on the legal presumption that it reflects what their players want, even when that country's NCBO has assiduously avoided making any attempt to actually find out what their players want. Those who would take strong exception to Wayne's argument should, IMO, do so honestly, by defending (2) above, not by pretending that it is equivalent to (1). Do not assume that I am on Wayne's side. In a previous post, I attempted to put forth a defense of (2) from the WBF's perspective, and Grattan replied that my formulation of the WBF's viewpoint was essentially correct. There are good reasons for the WBF to let NCBOs run the game however they please, regardless of what their players want. But let's not pretend that doing anything their governing bodies choose to do is the same thing as carrying out the consensual will of their respective memberships. 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 Apr 16 02:11:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FGBjV05018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:11:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FGBdH05014 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:11:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47042.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.194]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3FG0Jx26392 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:00:19 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CBAF94E.4010801@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:01:18 +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] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) References: <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <004201c1d434$41eb1d80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415090557.00aaacc0@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 06:30 PM 4/12/02, David wrote: > >> You cannot be suggesting that local regs are not permitted in Olympic >> sports! All sports have overall rules and local rules, as do >> mindsports. Of course, whether the distinction as to which rules must >> be overall would be acceptable to the Olympic authorities is another >> matter, but certainly to presume no local regs are acceptable cannot be >> the case. >> >> Consider promotion and relegation in hockey leagues: I am sure the >> rules are not the same in Peshawar as in Seoul. Yet hockey is, I >> believe, an Olympic sport. > > > Hockey is not analogous, for two reasons: (1) There is no international > governing body not directly affiliated with the Olympics (i.e. nothing > analogous to the WBF). Oh yes there is, two of them. David was talking of real hockey (not much ice in Pakistan). Ice Hockey and Hockey both have official world federations, affiliated to the IOC. (2) Olympic hockey teams (at least in the U.S. > and Canada) are simply named; there are no "qualifying events". Players > are not "in competition" for Olympic medals until they reach the Olympic > venue. > > Consider figure skating, also an Olympic event. They have an > international governing body which is made up of affiliated national > organizations. It tells those national organizations how many skaters > they may send to the Olympics (based on the country's performance in > previous Olympic and international events), and those skaters qualify > based on performance in national and lower-level international events. > This would seem to be a much closer analogy. There the rule is that any > competition run by a national organization which may effect who > qualifies must be run by exactly the same rules as those used in the > Olympics. > > I admit that I do not know whether this requirement is established by > the IOC or by the international figure skating authority itself, but the > former certainly wouldn't surprise 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/ > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 02:47:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FGlGE05039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:47:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FGlBH05035 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 02:47:12 +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 MAA08688 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:35:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA03176 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:35:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:35:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204151635.MAA03176@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: "John (MadDog) Probst" > because the withdrawn call has UI implications Which Law says this? Many people seem to believe it, no one has yet found anything in the Laws to support that belief. If there were something, I don't think we would see any disagreement. Notice that before 1997, the withdrawn bid was explicitly AI. Of course everyone agrees that remarks and mannerisms, should any exist, are UI. No problem there. But to see the case clearly, use the example that someone else suggested: the IB is somehow passed through a screen. After correction, a sufficient 2H bid comes through. Now there are no remarks or anything except the corrected IB itself. How do we rule? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 03:42:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FHgcE05102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 03:42:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FHgTH05098 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 03:42:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d125.iae.nl [212.61.3.125]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id F1750241EA for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:29:52 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <008501c1e4a2$ef86ac60$34053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200203292201.RAA01251@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3CA58CB1.128F34F8@t-online.de> <006b01c1d7ff$1347f600$684f003e@erdnbaum> <3CA5F467.C540FB67@t-online.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid II Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:27:47 +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 Snip > This is one of the single most important posts here in my view. Is > this what L27B2 means, or isn't it? I will tell you that I posted the > thread when I discovered that certain top French TDs assume this is the > meaning of L27B2, ie that you do not adjust if the players reach a > contract they likely would have reached if one of them had not made an > insufficient bid, even though they assumed the information from the > insufficient bid. > > Now I think the British view would be to adjust if they had used the > information from the insufficient bid to get there. However, there are > further difficulties with that approach, so I shall read a few more > posts before getting into that. > This weekend: pairs west north east south 3H 1NT TD! 3NT pass 6NT pass pass pass North is not concentrated and recognizes 1H. South has a five card in spades but sees no possibilities to let partner know and bids with 16 HP 6NT. A topscore because the other pairs are in 6S. The director rules the score stands. > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 05:13:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FJCLv05140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 05:12:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3FJC2H05136 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 05:12:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from Panther901.eiu.edu (Panther901.eiu.edu [139.67.11.140]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FJ0Wa21015; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:00:32 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.1.20020415134534.009d1370@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 13:59:58 -0500 To: Ed Reppert From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Cc: Bridge Laws In-Reply-To: <20020415101958-R01050000-56599B00-505A-11D6-A20A-0011D6199 FE7-0910-0108@192.168.1.2> References: <005301c1e44a$617d50c0$028e403e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:56 AM 4/15/02 -0400, Ed Reppert wrote: >On 4/15/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ Whatever told West that his partner had > >an opening hand. The IB did not do that. So > >a remark, mannerism, the way he placed the > >bidding card, what he said to the Director - > >something conveyed the news. > >"Why did partner make the only correction that would allow me to say >anything but pass? Either he has a simple raise, or he has some reason >to give me room to bid on." Is a jump to game with a minimum opener the >right call on that logic? I dunno. Does "principle of fast arrival" >apply here, or not? At the table, (absent all this discussion ) I >would probably bid the game. If it turns out partner only had the simple >raise, then we got stuffed by the IB. Breaks of the game. But for the >rules to allow me to judge what to do, and then penalize me for using >that judgement, just seems wrong. I agree. The other seem to be reading the law as saying "Law 16c2 does not apply to this situation, but as a matter of fact L16 will always apply to this situation." This seems incoherent to me. What's the point of having this passage in the law, if in fact you're going to rule 4H back as a UI violation? There is nothing in this case that suggested that any information has been passed to opener by way of gesture or remark. So if there's been no such information passed, then there can be no UI case at all, since we are explicitly told by the law that L16 doesn't apply to the insufficient bid. So, as I see it, we are left with: a) If opener guessed right, we simply assume there was UI and automatically adjust against him, or b) If we can't find any UI, we allow opener to use to information about the IB in his further bidding. I always read L27b1b as making an exception for cases in which the IB conveyed information that could not have been conveyed by any sufficient bid, producing damage. This probably makes it superfluous [since L72b1 probably covers all of the same cases], but I would much rather make L27b1b effectively superfluous than make the parenthetical comment in L27b1a effectively falsified. [I.e., better to make two laws double-up than make two laws contradictory.] I guess that makes me French, in this case. >Regards, > >Ed Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 06:26:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FKPw805171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 06:25:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3FKPqH05167 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 06:25:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.78.29]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUM00572LK0KN@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:14:28 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:16:07 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: John Probst , Sven Pran , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000a01c1e4c2$c40d9f60$1d4e003e@mycomputer> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <200204140134.VAA02539@cfa183.harvard.edu> <005801c1e484$e9dbd9c0$ed4d003e@mycomputer> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: ; "David Stevenson" Cc: "John Probst" ; "Sven Pran" ; "Israel Erdenbaum" Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 3:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > > > > John (MadDog) Probst writes > > > > >> > > No, it is not UI. The bid he made is not UI - how can it be? > > > > > I *. > > > > The TD is not required to explain the wrong thing - *that* would be TD > > error. You cannot suggest seriously that it is UI that partner bid 2H > > or that the TD should say so. Israel Erdenbaum [I hope there is nothing wrong doing it that way] > > > I think that John is serious, and IMNHO 'right' . But of course he is> 'legally wrong'. > Having admitted that you are 'legally right'. May I ask you.? > 1] The bidding goes 1H - p- -2 H * Oh I have a 1H opener > 2] or 1H - p--* 1H Oh I haven't seen you opened > > --No you don't have to explain again the legal difference , *just explain > the reason *why , as E I am, *so much better off* in ex.2. > Best regards > Israel > > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 07:37:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FLalW05258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:36:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FLafH05254 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:36:41 +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 g3FLPcx29287 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 22:25:39 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:16:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <00f201c1e3da$907be960$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 <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Grattan Endicott" >> From: "David Stevenson" >> > To find out what a Law means, surely it is best >> > to get a simple case and find out what it does there. >> > We have a case where 4H would be expected to be >> > reached by nearly every pair. We have a case where >> > nothing else untoward happened - there was no TD >> > error, nor extraneous information from comments. >> > >> +=+ I do not recall having seen the hand on which >> the insufficient bid was made. Without that it is >> questionable whether these statements are >> entirely justified. +=+ >> > >> > 4H was reached by 1H P 1H/2H P 4H on >> > a complete minimum. Does the Law tell us to adjust? > >Nor can I remember having seen any actual hands, but I >feel that Davids question was clear enough to be >answered generally. However, please let me post this >example and ask for a ruling: > >West East >Axx xx >KQxxx AJxxx >Kxx Axxx >xx KQ > >Auction (N-S pass all the time) > >West - East >1H - 1H* corrected to 2H >4H - pass > >No more beating around the bush, shall we allow the >4H bid? If so shall we accept pass from East after 4H >or adjust the score as if East had continued towards >slam? > >The Director has given all the information required so >there is no reason to question possible TD error, and >there are no extraneous remarks. >(And if that information is essential: 2H on its own >would have shown a simple raise with 6-9HCP). > I don't. I apply Law 72B1. I think I rule 5H down 1, rather than 2H up 2 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 Tue Apr 16 08:08:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FM7lo05280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:07:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3FM7gH05276 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:07:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA22342; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:09:29 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:53:58 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Cc: "bthorp::.gov.au":"pcug.org.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:55:49 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/04/2002 07:53:52 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g3FM7hH05277 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [big snip] >> >Eg4  1D X 1S    - ditto to eg3 > >Alertable if playing against children. Anyone >outside a kindergarten who thinks this call >promises spades should get some basic lessons. >(Although unlike 1H-X-1S I would not go so far >as to say it tends to deny spades.) > >Tim A lot depends on local bridge culture. In 1960s Italy the top players never psyched, relying instead upon the superior merits of their forcing club systems vis-a-vis the primitive and ineffective opposing systems available at the time. Therefore, in the sequence 1D-X-1S-X, the Blue Team played the second double as responsive rather than penalty. Not until an American perpetrated a devastingly effective baby psyche against the Blue Team in a World Championship did the Blue Team change their agreed meaning of the second double to the technically correct penalties. So, if my partner's baby psyches were of such great frequency that there is a partnership understanding that 1S is a two-way bid, then I **would** Alert 1S. 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 Apr 16 08:35:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FMZ2g05303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:35:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FMYtH05295 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:34:55 +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 SAA02341 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:23:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA03433 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:23:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:23:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204152223.SAA03433@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > I apply Law 72B1. Sorry, John, but this is the most bizarre answer yet. A villain, holding an opening bid and support for partner's hearts, decides "I'll make an insufficient 1H bid, and then partner can work out what I have, and we'll use the extra bidding room to get to a better contract." Really? This is better than making his ordinary, forcing bid? I guess I wouldn't make a very good villain -- my imagination just doesn't conceive of such notions. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 08:35:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FMZ5m05304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:35:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no ([148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3FMYvH05297 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:34:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2139.bb.online.no [80.212.216.91]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA22956 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:23:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:23:35 +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: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > In article <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran > writes > >From: "Grattan Endicott" > >> From: "David Stevenson" > >> > To find out what a Law means, surely it is best > >> > to get a simple case and find out what it does there. > >> > We have a case where 4H would be expected to be > >> > reached by nearly every pair. We have a case where > >> > nothing else untoward happened - there was no TD > >> > error, nor extraneous information from comments. > >> > > >> +=+ I do not recall having seen the hand on which > >> the insufficient bid was made. Without that it is > >> questionable whether these statements are > >> entirely justified. +=+ > >> > > >> > 4H was reached by 1H P 1H/2H P 4H on > >> > a complete minimum. Does the Law tell us to adjust? > > > >Nor can I remember having seen any actual hands, but I > >feel that Davids question was clear enough to be > >answered generally. However, please let me post this > >example and ask for a ruling: > > > >West East > >Axx xx > >KQxxx AJxxx > >Kxx Axxx > >xx KQ > > > >Auction (N-S pass all the time) > > > >West - East > >1H - 1H* corrected to 2H > >4H - pass > > > >No more beating around the bush, shall we allow the > >4H bid? If so shall we accept pass from East after 4H > >or adjust the score as if East had continued towards > >slam? > > > >The Director has given all the information required so > >there is no reason to question possible TD error, and > >there are no extraneous remarks. > >(And if that information is essential: 2H on its own > >would have shown a simple raise with 6-9HCP). > > > I don't. I apply Law 72B1. I think I rule 5H down 1, rather than 2H up > 2 cheers john I hadn't intended to comment any of the possible replies, but this calls for one: If you don't feel like using Law 27B1(b) there is no way I can see how you may use Law 72B1. Frankly my first reaction was: "Did he make a typo?". (But your ruling is certainly one of the possibilities I had in mind). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 08:40:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3FMdlE05323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:39:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3FMdgH05319 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:39:42 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3FMSNq01015 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:28:23 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 18:28:23 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "richard.hills@immi.gov.au" at Apr 16, 2002 07:55:49 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Um...maybe where you come from, but from around here on the East Coast of the US, this X is frequently played as showing 4S by the expert community (including several world and national champions). How else do you find your 4-4 spade fit when the opponent sticks a bid in. It also encourages people to bid 3-card majors in your face with a raise of their partner. And this does not constitute a psyhce since the ACBL designates that 3+ card suits are natural. -Ted. > [big snip] > > >> >Eg4  1D X 1S    - ditto to eg3 > > > >Alertable if playing against children. Anyone > >outside a kindergarten who thinks this call > >promises spades should get some basic lessons. > >(Although unlike 1H-X-1S I would not go so far > >as to say it tends to deny spades.) > > > >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 Apr 16 11:47:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G1kED05453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:46:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3G1k0H05439 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:46:05 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 26522 invoked by uid 504); 16 Apr 2002 01:34:42 -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 0.937579 secs); 16 Apr 2002 01:34:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.129) by 0 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2002 01:34:41 -0000 Message-ID: <01fe01c1e4e6$44e73a60$8316b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 09:56:46 +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: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > > It is 7 honour points short of my agreed range - surely that is a gross > misstatement. (One or two of my partners might expect something like this > nv vs vul in third seat - they would alert.) > If they alert then they must acknowledge a partnership understanding. If they acknowledge a partnership understanding then this is subject to regulation - if the understanding is conventional or a light opening action. A 1s opening willing to play in spades is non-conventional by definition. Whether a hand is a king or more below average is (or maybe) moot. 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 Apr 16 11:47:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G1kF705454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:46:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3G1k5H05445 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:46:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 26586 invoked by uid 504); 16 Apr 2002 01:34:48 -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 2.065876 secs); 16 Apr 2002 01:34:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.129) by 0 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2002 01:34:46 -0000 Message-ID: <020001c1e4e6$479f0760$8316b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop><3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost><003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop><37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk><003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop><00b601c1e32d$38b983c0$8249e150@dodona><007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415110342.00aa0560@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:11:52 +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, April 16, 2002 3:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > At 09:06 PM 4/13/02, David wrote: > > >Wayne Burrows writes > > > > >Interpretation maybe but only the interpretation that a rational > > reading of > > >the laws would come to without a knowledge of some convoluted > > interpretation > > >that has been made and ineffectively promulgated. > > > > Ok, you have had your rant. We have tried to explain why you are > >wrong, and you have just gone on. > > > > The rest of the world is wrong, and Wayne is right. OK, so be it. > > > > But why you really want to spoil the game for others just because you > >cannot see a simple interpretation, or perhaps because you do not want > >to see a simple interpretation, is beyond me. > > > > >Why not simply revise the laws so that they say what they mean. > > > > Because when they are revised you will still disagree with what others > >interpret them as. > > I think David is being a bit too harsh on Wayne. > > David is certainly correct that there is no question as to the legality > of the Austrian ban on psychs, or the ACBL's ban on the 9-point 1NT > opening. The WBF has addressed the question, and has pronounced upon > it. End of discussion (at least with respect to the current state of > the Law). > > But Wayne is correct as well. There is no way in h--l that someone > simply reading TFLB with no knowledge of the existence, much less > substance, of the WBF promulgation on the subject would come to the > conclusion that the legality of the Austrian or ACBL regs was in any > sense obvious, or even suggested. > > I do not, of course, believe that "the rest of the world is wrong, and > Wayne is right". But neither do I beleive that the rest of the world > is right, and Wayne is wrong. To be realistic, David should have said > that the WBF and those that are privy to its workings are right, and > the rest of the world, Wayne included, are wrong. > I go further, I do not believe that the WBF really mean that regulations that are made under L40D or L80E are allowed to conflict with other laws. At best or worst depending on your point of view they mean that we will allow regulations that conflict with certain laws, in this case L40A and those conflicts that would be allowed may even be limited to that particular law. Wayne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 11:47:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G1kCI05452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:46:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3G1k2H05441 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:46:02 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 26551 invoked by uid 504); 16 Apr 2002 01:34:45 -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 1.231539 secs); 16 Apr 2002 01:34:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.129) by 0 with SMTP; 16 Apr 2002 01:34:43 -0000 Message-ID: <01ff01c1e4e6$46262300$8316b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3CBAD809.8000609@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:02:10 +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: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 1:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > In-Reply-To: <3CBABAEB.40409@village.uunet.be> > > Herman wrote: > > > >>Opening 1He on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is a psyche. That cannot be > >>forbidden, not even by regulations such as the one described above. > >> > > > > That, Herman, is the whole point of this debate. Grattan has said that > > the WBF would not interfere if an NBO (or whatever) introduced a > > regulation like: > > > > Approved conventions: No conventions may be played by a pair whose > > 1 level opening bids, whether by agreement or not, do not meet the > > requirements of the rule of 20 on every hand. In other words a pair that > > wished to psyche occasionally would have to forego every single > > conventional bid in every auction - a price even I would be unprepared to > > pay. > > > > > Well, the SO writing that regulation would indeed be contrary to the > spirit of bridge as I know it. > As Tim said this is the issue. The WBF say the above regulation is legimate. And IMO it is not too different than the regulations that are made by a number of NOs. In fact there are again IMO worse 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 Tue Apr 16 17:00:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G6xTh05618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:59:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3G6xOH05614 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:59:24 +1000 (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 g3G6m9I21636 for ; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001b01c1e512$a03cdd80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:47:46 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > I would suggest that "Blackwood" is a far less ethical reply even than > would be "asking for aces". So while David and I may agree as to what > is obviously ethical in this situation, the ACBL seems to have other ideas. > So then if you ask me what my partner's 2NT response to a weak two bid means, it is not enough for me to say, "Artificial, forcing, asking for more information," but to be ethical I should say "Ogust, asking me to bid 3C with a bad suit and bad hand, 3D bad suit good hand, 3H good suit bad hand, 3S good suit good hand, 3NT solid suit." Such disclosures of what my possible next bids will mean is going to be a big help to my game, as my partners sometimes forget our agreements (e.g., 1430 or 3014?). Maybe the ACBL figures that players should not explain their own bids until L20F is changed to allow it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California . -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 17:31:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G7Us005677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:30:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g3G7UeH05655 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:30:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.68.72] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xNEv-00057N-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:18:58 +0100 Message-ID: <006b01c1e517$2c84e540$4844e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:47:06 +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 > I made no statement as to whether the regulations > were in the best interest of Austrians. Even Grattan > agreed that the regulation as translated was clearly > illegal. > +=+ 'Even' ? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 17:31:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G7Usv05678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:30:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g3G7UgH05660 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:30:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.68.72] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xNEx-00057N-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:18:59 +0100 Message-ID: <006c01c1e517$2d991460$4844e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: <150.c55569c.29ec4837@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:18:54 +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: Cc: Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > Grattan, > > It seems very likely that there was such UI as would > give the opener reason to believe his partner had an > opening hand, but what if there wasn't? What if opener > just guessed that his partner had such a hand? For > example, red at IMPs wouldn't many players make > this guess? Isn't this the adjustment problem here? > > Michael Huston +=+ Certainly this is a question. In the EBL I would consider it covered by the Example A of 1992 which, until the guidance is changed, cites the case as one for consideration under 27B1(b). As the guidance was approved at the time by Edgar K it might be thought to have wider import - EK gave the example of the opening hand responding insufficiently to an opener as his chief illustration of the use of 27B1(b) when the 1987 Laws were written. So, if the information could indeed be gathered from the IB alone, EK's view was that 27B1(b) applied. You will have picked up my agreement with his view, not that I have a wide reputation for automatic agreement with committee chairmen. ~ 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 Apr 16 17:31:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G7UpN05673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:30:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3G7UcH05652 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:30:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.68.72] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xNEs-00057N-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:18:54 +0100 Message-ID: <006a01c1e517$2a4a3780$4844e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:46:20 +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'" ; Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:53 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > the > > 4H bid? > > That is not the right question, there is no option but > to accept the 4H-bid. > > > If so shall we accept pass from East after 4H > > or adjust the score as if East had continued towards > > slam? > > > There is no option but to accept the pass from East. > > > > The Director has given all the information required so > > there is no reason to question possible TD error, and > > there are no extraneous remarks. > > (And if that information is essential: 2H on its own > > would have shown a simple raise with 6-9HCP). > > That information is not essential. > +=+ I support this last statement. The two statements that there is "no option" I find less certain. They are set in global terms as though there were some authority, unknown to me, on which to base them. Unless the offender makes it known that he thought he was opening the hand - which is info not covered IMO by the relief in 27B1(a) - the offender may be thinking he is responding to partner's 1 minor opening, or that he is opening the bidding, or that he is overcalling RHO's opener. I am sceptical that opener can assume a full opening hand without having some UI from a mannerism or a statement (perhaps to the Director) by his partner. There is nothing in Law 27 to say these are not UI to him; I would suggest that they are quite plainly UI. What I think is that, before ruling, the Director is required to explore this question. I lack conviction, also, that the jump to 4H, if made on a minimum hand, is properly described as proceeding with the auction "as though the irregularity had not occurred" (sic) ~ 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 Apr 16 17:31:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G7UjB05661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:30:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.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 g3G7UZH05647 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:30:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.68.72] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xNEq-00057N-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:18:52 +0100 Message-ID: <006901c1e517$29579a20$4844e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] laws 25b? Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 06:58:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; "Lino Tralhão (NETCABO)" ; Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 8:09 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] laws 25b? > > Let us be clear, we didn't need this decision > from the LC to know what to do in this case. > This information is as unauthorized as is > possible, that being true for decades already. > > ton > -- +=+ It does help, though, if an authoritative decision of the committee can be quoted rather than a personal opinion from me or from ton. The decision in question was proposed by ton. ~ 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 Apr 16 18:42:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G8gRt05752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:42:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3G8gLH05748 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:42:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3G8UxH15816 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:31:04 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Apr 16 10:27:13 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGMMJUMMNS001LZK@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:30:47 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNF1RF8>; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:30:26 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:30:45 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Arbhuston@aol.com Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Grattan, > > > > It seems very likely that there was such UI as would > > give the opener reason to believe his partner had an > > opening hand, but what if there wasn't? What if opener > > just guessed that his partner had such a hand? For > > example, red at IMPs wouldn't many players make > > this guess? Isn't this the adjustment problem here? > > > > Michael Huston > > +=+ Certainly this is a question. In the EBL I would > consider it covered by the Example A of 1992 which, > until the guidance is changed, cites the case as one > for consideration under 27B1(b). As the guidance was > approved at the time by Edgar K it might be thought > to have wider import - EK gave the example of the > opening hand responding insufficiently to an opener > as his chief illustration of the use of 27B1(b) when > the 1987 Laws were written. So, if the information > could indeed be gathered from the IB alone, EK's > view was that 27B1(b) applied. You will have > picked up my agreement with his view, not that > I have a wide reputation for automatic agreement > with committee chairmen. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Which is certainly not easy when committee chairmen seem to disagree among themselves. one question: you are not suggesting that the Guidance published in the EBL in 1992 has force of law, are you? Nor are you saying that this guidance is the official interpretation of the laws in the EBL? That would create the same problem as the WBF once in a while has with other zones thinking to possess the authority to have their own interpretation of the laws, don't you think? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 18:57:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G8vf805772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:57:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3G8vZH05768 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:57:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3G8kHH20451 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:46:20 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Apr 16 10:42:30 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGMN2WXPJU001MED@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:46:09 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNF1STP>; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:45:49 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:46:07 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Grattan Endicott ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > "Oh let us never, never doubt > What nobody is sure about. " > Hilaire Belloc. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Shall we accept the 4H bid? > > > > That is not the right question, there is no option but > > to accept the 4H-bid. > > > > > > If so shall we accept pass from East after 4H > > > or adjust the score as if East had continued towards > > > slam? > > > > > > There is no option but to accept the pass from East. > > > > > > > The Director has given all the information required so > > > there is no reason to question possible TD error, and > > > there are no extraneous remarks. > > > (And if that information is essential: 2H on its own > > > would have shown a simple raise with 6-9HCP). > > > > That information is not essential. > > > +=+ I support this last statement. The two statements > that there is "no option" I find less certain. They are set > in global terms as though there were some authority, > unknown to me, on which to base them. For once I reacted quite formally, without any purpose to win this battle by force. The TD may come up with an adjusted score, but not one based on using UI. I don't like your escape introducing mannerisms, remarks etc at this moment. Of course I discuss this problem assuming that nothing happened but the IB. And then the AS should be based on just innocent sides, not on considerations that 4H or pass is not allowed. That is my strong but still PERSONAL opinion. ton > Unless the offender makes it known that he > thought he was opening the hand - which is info not > covered IMO by the relief in 27B1(a) - the offender > may be thinking he is responding to partner's > 1 minor opening, or that he is opening the bidding, > or that he is overcalling RHO's opener. I am > sceptical that opener can assume a full opening > hand without having some UI from a mannerism or a > statement (perhaps to the Director) by his partner. > There is nothing in Law 27 to say these are not UI > to him; I would suggest that they are quite plainly > UI. What I think is that, before ruling, the Director > is required to explore this question. > I lack conviction, also, that the jump to 4H, if > made on a minimum hand, is properly described > as proceeding with the auction "as though the > irregularity had not occurred" (sic) ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 19:23:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3G9Mwg05800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:22:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3G9MqH05796 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3371.bb.online.no [80.212.221.43]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA18003 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:11:32 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003701c1e526$b3ef31c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Interpretation of the laws (was insufficient bid) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 11:11:32 +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: "Kooijman, A." > one question: you are not suggesting that the Guidance published in the EBL > in 1992 has force of law, are you? Nor are you saying that this guidance is > the official interpretation of the laws in the EBL? That would create the > same problem as the WBF once in a while has with other zones thinking to > possess the authority to have their own interpretation of the laws, don't > you think? >From "real" life of justice I have the impression that whenever a court of law is in doubt on how to interpret a particular law they search for the notes on the preparations for the law, the comments made by authorities and also for previous interpretations made in court. None of these, not even supreme court decisions, automatically have "force of law", but they certainly have great impact. I, for one, have always treated the commentary in 1992 as a very valuable such source and will continue to do, as I will of course treat interpretations made by various other authorities. But in the end, lacking official instructions from the institutions of Bridge, I shall continue to make my rulings according to my own conviction on how the laws are to be understood, even when I after hearing other people's understanding of the laws do disagree. The 1992 commentary is IMO the closest we can get to an official document giving us the EBL interpretation of the laws, and for instance here in Norway it was introduced to us as such by the Norwegian LC. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 16 21:34:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GBY5s05899 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:34:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GBY0H05895 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:34:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.75.239] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xR2X-00018Q-00; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:22:25 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c1e539$29ca39a0$ef4be150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:23:03 +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: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:30 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid . > > one question: you are not suggesting that the > Guidance published in the EBL in 1992 has > force of law, are you? Nor are you saying that this > guidance is the official interpretation of the laws > in the EBL? > +=+ In the course of preparation the book was the product of consultation between the Chairman of the EBL Laws Committee and one of his members. Personal opinion, with the advice also of the Chairman of the WBFLC of the day. What it said was then formally approved by the EBL Laws Committee, authorized by the EBL Executive Committee, and published by the EBL Publications Department under the Editorship of Panos Gerontopulous as "guidance" that the zonal authority had a duty, it said, to provide. "Force of law", no - less uncertain than that:-) - and the WBFLC said "interim interpretations of law are made by zonal organizations". This one has not been overtaken as yet. ~ 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 Apr 16 22:25:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GCP6706023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:25:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GCOvH06019 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:24:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16xRqA-0004Xb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:13:42 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020416075503.00aac460@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:13:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts In-Reply-To: <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@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 06:28 PM 4/15/02, Ted wrote: >Um...maybe where you come from, but from around here on the >East Coast of the US, this X is frequently played as showing >4S by the expert community (including several world and >national champions). How else do you find your 4-4 spade >fit when the opponent sticks a bid in. It also encourages >people to bid 3-card majors in your face with a raise of their >partner. And this does not constitute a psyhce since the ACBL >designates that 3+ card suits are natural. Let's be careful not to confuse two different things. The statement that "3+ card suits are natural" means that your system may include natural bids on three-card suits. You may systemically play, for example, that 1H-X-1S may be on as little as Sxxx, subject to the usual disclosure [*]. A psych (which is perforce not subject to disclosure in the ACBL) is a gross distortion of the systemic meaning of your call, and has nothing whatsoever to do with how many cards you hold in the suit you bid. [*] Or so one would think, given the definition of "convention", but in reality I very much doubt it. I strongly suspect that if one asked the ACBL for an official ruling, they would tell you that such an agreement was not allowed on some grounds or other (perhaps as an "agreement to psych", 3+-card suit requirement notwithstanding). They would surely disallow an agreement to bid 1S as either a normal overcall or a three-card suit *with heart support* (the "baby psych", as it's been called here) -- that would be clearly conventional. But this is all beside the point. 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 Apr 16 22:57:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GCvEm06067 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:57:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GCv6H06063 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:57:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=elandau.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16xSLH-0001Q0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:45:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 08:45:58 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <001b01c1e512$a03cdd80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@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 02:47 AM 4/16/02, Marvin wrote: >So then if you ask me what my partner's 2NT response to a weak two bid >means, it is not enough for me to say, "Artificial, forcing, asking for >more information," Clearly not enough, since you could use exactly the same words to describe the "standard" agreement, which is very different from Ogust. If your explicit agreement includes "Ogust", you must reveal that. >but to be ethical I should say "Ogust, asking me to >bid 3C with a bad suit and bad hand, 3D bad suit good hand, 3H good suit >bad hand, 3S good suit good hand, 3NT solid suit." No, you should never enumerate responses. But nor should you leave your opponents in the dark about the context of those responses, much less mislead them. "Artificial, asking me about the strength of my [suit] and the overall strength of my hand" sounds about right to me. In the games I play, "Ogust" would be adequate, if technically improper. >Such disclosures of what my possible next bids will mean is going to be >a big help to my game, as my partners sometimes forget our agreements >(e.g., 1430 or 3014?). When describing a 4NT call, one should say, as appropriate, (1) "Asking for aces." But most would accept "Blackwood" as an adequate and synonymous, if technically improper, specification. Or (2) "Asking for key cards". But most would accept "RKC" as an allowable, if techically improper, over-specification. They are not the same thing. "Blackwood" when asking for key cards seems just as misleading as "key card" when asking for aces. "1430" or "3014" is inappropriate, as it is enumerating responses. >Maybe the ACBL figures that players should not explain their own bids >until L20F is changed to allow it. They do, and they are right. Players should not explain their own bids, or prospective bids. But they should also figure that players should not offer explanations of asking bids that will mislead their opponents into thinking they're asking for something other than what their agreement specifies, such as "Blackwood", which suggests asking for aces, when asking for key cards, or "asking for more information", which suggests that a semi-natural (suit, feature, or fragment) bid is forthcoming, when playing Ogust responses. 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 Apr 16 23:37:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GDaie06103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:36:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3GDadH06099 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:36:40 +1000 (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 16xSxX-000GiQ-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:25:24 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 14:55:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) References: <3CBABAEB.40409@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CBABAEB.40409@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >Opening 1He on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is a psyche. That cannot be >forbidden, not even by regulations such as the one described above. >Opening 1Sp on KJxxxx x xxxxxx - is NOT a psyche. You can call it >systemic if you want, or grey area light opening or whatever, but you >cannot call it a psyche. It is not a gross misstatement of honour >strength. If you play an opening bid to show 12+ HCP then it is a gross misstatement of honour strength. You may open such a hand, Herman, by agreement, but if a pair does not by agreement then to do so is a psyche. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 00:52:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GEo0p06166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:50:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GEnnH06153 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:49:49 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3GEcXM18784 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:38:33 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:38 +0100 (BST) 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: <006b01c1e517$2c84e540$4844e150@dodona> > > I made no statement as to whether the regulations > > were in the best interest of Austrians. Even Grattan > > agreed that the regulation as translated was clearly > > illegal. > > > +=+ 'Even' ? +=+ Grattan, I see you as one of the strongest proponents of countries having local regulations rather than having the WBF enforce a single set of laws. In that context I think "even" makes sense. 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 Apr 17 00:52:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GEo1p06167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:50:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GEnoH06154 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:49:51 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3GEcYg18817 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:38:34 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:38 +0100 (BST) 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: <3CBAD809.8000609@village.uunet.be> > > Approved conventions: No conventions may be played by a pair whose > > 1 level opening bids, whether by agreement or not, do not meet the > > requirements of the rule of 20 on every hand. In other words a pair > > that wished to psyche occasionally would have to forego every single > > conventional bid in every auction - a price even I would be > > unprepared to pay. > > Well, the SO writing that regulation would indeed be contrary to the > spirit of bridge as I know it. Of course. But in Italy and Austria the SOs have tried, apparently, to outlaw (or severely restrict) psyches. I would like to see a very firm statement from the WBF that a regulation such as the above would be illegal. And I am sorry DWS, but I just can't persuade myself that banning psyches is really in the interests of Italian/Austrian players - or anyone else. 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 Apr 17 00:52:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GEo2R06168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:50:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GEnqH06157 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:49:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3GEcaR18847 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:38:36 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:38 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020416075503.00aac460@pop.starpower.net> > At 06:28 PM 4/15/02, Ted wrote: > > >Um...maybe where you come from, but from around here on the > >East Coast of the US, this X is frequently played as showing > >4S by the expert community (including several world and > >national champions). How else do you find your 4-4 spade > >fit when the opponent sticks a bid in. It also encourages > >people to bid 3-card majors in your face with a raise of their > >partner. And this does not constitute a psyhce since the ACBL > >designates that 3+ card suits are natural. A double of the 1S certainly promises spades (absent specific agreement to the contrary) - it is the 1S bid itself which doesn't promise spades - and wouldn't be expected to in a decent game. > A psych (which is perforce not subject to disclosure in the ACBL) is a > gross distortion of the systemic meaning of your call, and has nothing > whatsoever to do with how many cards you hold in the suit you bid. Psyching habits can create implicit partnership understandings which are disclosable everywhere aren't they? (Although not alertable necessarily). Obviously a disclosable understanding is different to a regulatable agreement. > [*] Or so one would think, given the definition of "convention", but in > reality I very much doubt it. I strongly suspect that if one asked the > ACBL for an official ruling, they would tell you that such an agreement > was not allowed on some grounds or other (perhaps as an "agreement to > psych", 3+-card suit requirement notwithstanding). They would surely > disallow an agreement to bid 1S as either a normal overcall or a > three-card suit *with heart support* (the "baby psych", as it's been > called here) -- that would be clearly conventional. But this is all > beside the point. Don't be too hard on them. If you look on the GCC "allowed" section under the competitive section you will find: 6. DEFENSE TO: a) conventional calls Thus you are allowed any conventional defence once opponents start making conventional calls. This feels very fair on "they started it" grounds:) The takeout double is probably the world's most useful and widespread convention. 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 Apr 17 01:24:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GFNp606245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:23:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.gmx.net (pop.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g3GFNjH06239 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:23:46 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: <200204161523.g3GFNjH06239@rgb.anu.edu.au> Received: (qmail 16387 invoked by uid 0); 16 Apr 2002 15:12:24 -0000 Received: from pd9e3848c.dip.t-dialin.net (HELO www) (217.227.132.140) by mail.gmx.net (mp010-rz3) with SMTP; 16 Apr 2002 15:12:24 -0000 From: "stefan filonardi" To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:09:29 +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 (fwd) In-reply-to: X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v3.12b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, On 16 Apr 02, at 15:38, Tim West-meads wrote: > Of course. But in Italy and Austria the SOs have tried, apparently, > to outlaw (or severely restrict) psyches. I would like to see a very > firm statement from the WBF that a regulation such as the above would > be illegal. And I am sorry DWS, but I just can't persuade myself that > banning psyches is really in the interests of Italian/Austrian players > - or anyone else. Maybe it is just the logical consequence that, after banning "disruptive" bidding methods, some SO banns "disruptive" psyching. 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 Wed Apr 17 03:18:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GHHpg06340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:17:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GHHkH06336 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:17:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d066.iae.nl [212.61.3.66]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 410B12EC31 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:06:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <002101c1e568$d7ced360$42033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Miss Leading? Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:03:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. The directors cannot come to an agreement: Is it allowed to deviate? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 03:36:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GHa8R06360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:36:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GHa3H06356 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:36:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18730; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:25:04 -0700 Message-Id: <200204161725.KAA18730@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:03:14 +0200." <002101c1e568$d7ced360$42033dd4@b0e7g1> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 10:25:04 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. > The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. > As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. > > The directors cannot come to an agreement: > Is it allowed to deviate? Of course you're allowed to deviate. The important question here is: What is their systemic lead from an interior sequence? It's pretty common in my part of the world to play "10 or 9 = two or none higher", which means that from a holding like KJ10(xx), K109(xx), Q109(xx), you lead the second highest card of the interior sequence (10, 9, 9 respectively). On ACBL convention cards, there's an area where these leads would have to be marked. I don't know what Dutch convention cards look like or what your CC regulations are. If the defense plays this way and did not properly disclose it according to the relevant regulations, the TD can rule there's damage due to misinformation. If, however, the defense doesn't use this system (and there's no evidence of an implicit agreement to play this way), then there's no misinformation. -- 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 Apr 17 03:42:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GHg8K06382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:42:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GHg3H06378 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 03:42:03 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3GHUlY02964 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:30:47 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:30 +0100 (BST) 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: <01fe01c1e4e6$44e73a60$8316b9d2@laptop> Wayne wrote: > Whether a hand is a king or more below average is (or maybe) moot. My gut feel told me that KJT987,6,T98765,- was within a king of average strength while KJ5432,6,765432,- wasn't. The KR hand evaluator agreed with my first analysis (with points to spare) but indicated that the weaker hand was also within tolerances. Personally I will go with my gut and may open the first but would not open the second (make the other suit hearts and I'm in there though!). I don't want to get into an argument with an LTC devotee who says they are both 6 loser hands - I hope the law wasn't designed to be that prescriptive about player judgements. I am still not entirely sure how this works though. The "strength of an average hand" like QT2,K974,J83,A65 works out to about 8.7 and yet I am fairly sure that the "average strength of all hands" is a bit higher (maybe 10 or so). It isn't easy agreeing "rules" for extremely distributional hands. 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 Apr 17 05:09:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GJ8N406551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 05:08:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GJ8HH06547 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 05:08:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1558.bb.online.no [80.212.214.22]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA17798 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:56:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001b01c1e578$7a7049a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 20:56:54 +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: "Eric Landau" > When describing a 4NT call, one should say, as appropriate, (1) "Asking > for aces." But most would accept "Blackwood" as an adequate and > synonymous, if technically improper, specification. Or (2) "Asking for > key cards". But most would accept "RKC" as an allowable, if techically > improper, over-specification. They are not the same > thing. "Blackwood" when asking for key cards seems just as misleading > as "key card" when asking for aces. "Blackwood" is a perfectly correct (initial) answer if 4NT *is* Blackwood, that is if 5C shows 0 (or 4), 5D shows 1, 5H shows 2 and 4S shows 3 aces. Anything else is not (standard) Blackwood, and then "Blackwood" is an improper answer. If opponents do not know what standard Blackwood is then it is their duty to ask again for clarification. Similar applies to an answer "Roman Key Card Blackwood", but if your convention is not strictly according to the original RKCB then you must not say that it is by using those words alone. You can always "escape" by saying "modified Blackwood" or "modified Roman Key Card Blackwood" (or words to that effect) and await opponents next question: "modified in what way please?", and you should always be prepared to give a complete textbook description on what the convention implies to the finest detail if requested. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 06:14:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GKE1306606 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:14:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GKDsH06602 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:13:55 +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 g3GK2qx31943 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:02:53 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:01:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$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 <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:16 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > > >> In article <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran >> writes >> >From: "Grattan Endicott" >> >> From: "David Stevenson" >> >> > To find out what a Law means, surely it is best >> >> > to get a simple case and find out what it does there. >> >> > We have a case where 4H would be expected to be >> >> > reached by nearly every pair. We have a case where >> >> > nothing else untoward happened - there was no TD >> >> > error, nor extraneous information from comments. >> >> > >> >> +=+ I do not recall having seen the hand on which >> >> the insufficient bid was made. Without that it is >> >> questionable whether these statements are >> >> entirely justified. +=+ >> >> > >> >> > 4H was reached by 1H P 1H/2H P 4H on >> >> > a complete minimum. Does the Law tell us to adjust? >> > >> >Nor can I remember having seen any actual hands, but I >> >feel that Davids question was clear enough to be >> >answered generally. However, please let me post this >> >example and ask for a ruling: >> > >> >West East >> >Axx xx >> >KQxxx AJxxx >> >Kxx Axxx >> >xx KQ >> > >> >Auction (N-S pass all the time) >> > >> >West - East >> >1H - 1H* corrected to 2H >> >4H - pass >> > >> >No more beating around the bush, shall we allow the >> >4H bid? If so shall we accept pass from East after 4H >> >or adjust the score as if East had continued towards >> >slam? >> > >> >The Director has given all the information required so >> >there is no reason to question possible TD error, and >> >there are no extraneous remarks. >> >(And if that information is essential: 2H on its own >> >would have shown a simple raise with 6-9HCP). >> > >> I don't. I apply Law 72B1. I think I rule 5H down 1, rather than 2H up >> 2 cheers john > >I hadn't intended to comment any of the possible replies, but >this calls for one: If you don't feel like using Law 27B1(b) there >is no way I can see how you may use Law 72B1. Frankly my >first reaction was: "Did he make a typo?". Time to emerge from the woodwork: Nope. I tend to chuck an awful lot at 72B1. I "could have known" when I responded one heart to one heart that this action would be "likely to damage the non-offending side". No intent is required - that's the beauty of it. DWS and I fight like tigers over this one, but it is an essential part of the proprieties. (Indeed at rubber bridge it is just about the only propriety) It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity hadn't occurred" means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that is all that is authorised, which is why I'm more inclined to 5H minus 1 than 2H making 4. When ruling this at the table (and I've done so many times) I always explain "... and if you simply make your bid good [acceptable explanation in England] then your partner will be looking at that auction and must bid solely based on what he sees, not on what he can also guess. It could well be in your best interest to pot the final contract now even if it means silencing partner". I expect that DWS and I will fight like tigers over this remark too. I'm minded of the long discussion we had here re: "the Rottweiller Coup" where the only way to go is via 72B1. Potted summary of the Rottweiller Coup follows: He multied a 6025 1-count out of turn, then silenced his partner by psyching his void. When they reached slam in diamonds (screaming a singleton club in the auction) he lead a suit preference club and got his heart ruff. The howls of rage could be heard even in Svenland. TD ruled result stands, AC overturned it and we had a 100+ post thread discussing it. > >(But your ruling is certainly one of the possibilities I had in mind). > >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 17 06:19:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GKJLm06621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:19:21 +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 g3GKJGH06617 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:19:16 +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 g3GK8Fx31947 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:08:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:06:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <200204152223.SAA03433@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200204152223.SAA03433@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 <200204152223.SAA03433@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> I apply Law 72B1. > >Sorry, John, but this is the most bizarre answer yet. A villain, >holding an opening bid and support for partner's hearts, decides "I'll >make an insufficient 1H bid, and then partner can work out what I have, >and we'll use the extra bidding room to get to a better contract." >Really? This is better than making his ordinary, forcing bid? > If I have it on good authority that the auction as originally posted will get us to 4H without adjustment, then once I'd made the insufficient bid I would definitely bid 2H, not 4H. I didn't intend it (because that's a grave offence) but once I've done it I must make the best of it. I definitely could have known ..... >I guess I wouldn't make a very good villain -- my imagination just >doesn't conceive of such notions. Neither did the Rottweiller when he perpetrated his greatest coup (qv elsewhere in the thread] >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 17 06:35:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GKYkp06638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:34:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GKYeH06634 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:34:41 +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 g3GKNex31976 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:23:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:21:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <001b01c1e512$a03cdd80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001b01c1e512$a03cdd80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001b01c1e512$a03cdd80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> I would suggest that "Blackwood" is a far less ethical reply even than >> would be "asking for aces". So while David and I may agree as to what >> is obviously ethical in this situation, the ACBL seems to have other >ideas. >> >So then if you ask me what my partner's 2NT response to a weak two bid >means, it is not enough for me to say, "Artificial, forcing, asking for >more information," but to be ethical I should say "Ogust, asking me to ... bid my strength and suit quality in steps. Do you need further information?" >bid 3C with a bad suit and bad hand, 3D bad suit good hand, 3H good suit >bad hand, 3S good suit good hand, 3NT solid suit." but not your explanation > >Such disclosures of what my possible next bids will mean is going to be >a big help to my game, as my partners sometimes forget our agreements >(e.g., 1430 or 3014?). Indeed. Your explanation creates unnecessary UI, I don't think mine does. As for the blackwood explanation something on the lines of "rkc for 5 key cards and the trump Q by steps. I'll give you the full sequence if you want it" seems about right. > >Maybe the ACBL figures that players should not explain their own bids >until L20F is changed to allow it. > Marvin, I hear you, I really do. But... It is still clear to me that you "must" avoid MI, even at the cost of creating UI. >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > >. > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Apr 17 06:42:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GKgDq06660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:42:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GKg8H06656 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:42:08 +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 g3GKV3x32003 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:31:03 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:29:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <002101c1e568$d7ced360$42033dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <002101c1e568$d7ced360$42033dd4@b0e7g1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002101c1e568$d7ced360$42033dd4@b0e7g1>, Ben Schelen writes >The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. >The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. >As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. > We also need to know their honour lead style. eg 10/9 show 0 or two higher is standard expert practice in London but is it so where the ruling took place? >The directors cannot come to an agreement: >Is it allowed to deviate? > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 17 06:52:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GKq4W06682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:52:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GKpvH06676 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:51:58 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3GKeas11143 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:40:36 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200204162040.g3GKeas11143@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:40:36 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "John (MadDog) Probst" at Apr 16, 2002 09:21:43 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:21:43 +0100 > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > >So then if you ask me what my partner's 2NT response to a weak two bid > >means, it is not enough for me to say, "Artificial, forcing, asking for > >more information," but to be ethical I should say "Ogust, asking me to > > ... bid my strength and suit quality in steps. Do you need further > information?" > > >bid 3C with a bad suit and bad hand, 3D bad suit good hand, 3H good suit > >bad hand, 3S good suit good hand, 3NT solid suit." > > but not your explanation > > > >Such disclosures of what my possible next bids will mean is going to be > >a big help to my game, as my partners sometimes forget our agreements > >(e.g., 1430 or 3014?). > > Indeed. Your explanation creates unnecessary UI, I don't think mine > does. > TY: I personally think that your explanation also gives UI. I know many people who play with infrequent partnerships who forget if 2NT is Ogust or Feature. Or if they play standard Ogust or 5-card Ogust or some other modification. Your explanation solves that problem for partner. In fact, almost every session I hear some variation of "are we playing Ogust or Feature?" or "I forgot if we play Ogust" or some such. I personally explain exactly what was written to start with ("Artificial, forcing, asking for more information") and if the opponents want more information they can ask. If not, after the auction is over, before the opening lead, if my side is declaring, I usually say "we play Ogust" or "we respond with modified Ogust responses" or whatever. Full disclosure is a fine policy to hold, but you have to moderate it with UI situations. You need to give the opponents what they'll need to know at the time without giving your partner unnecessary UI. If the opponents don't need to know more at the time, they can be filled in later before they do need to know. -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 06:56:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GKuLt06697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:56:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GKuGH06693 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:56:16 +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 QAA26307 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA09296 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:45:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204162045.QAA09296@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Nope. I tend to chuck an awful lot at 72B1. I "could have known" when I > responded one heart to one heart that this action would be "likely to > damage the non-offending side". Really? Likely? How, exactly? In most bidding systems I know, a hand with game values and support for the major partner has just opened is easy to bid. Why mess around and give partner a chance to do something silly? That's the work of a villain??? (Note: on BLML, "villain" is used as shorthand for a player who wants to win and doesn't care whether he violates the rules.) > It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity hadn't occurred" > means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that is all that is authorised, This is an interesting view and might even be correct. However, I notice that the same wording existed in 1987, and the withdrawn IB was specifically made AI. What's the point of that if the phrase you quote means it is in effect UI? > If I have it on good authority that the auction as originally posted > will get us to 4H without adjustment, then once I'd made the > insufficient bid I would definitely bid 2H, not 4H. I didn't intend it > (because that's a grave offence) but once I've done it I must make the > best of it. I definitely could have known ..... Now you seem to be saying that there's some irregularity after the initial 1H IB. Before you were saying that a villain might perpetrate the 1H bid. Which is it? > I'm minded of the long discussion we had here re: "the Rottweiller Coup" > where the only way to go is via 72B1. Yes, there's no doubt that if there's to be an adjustment in that case, it has to be under 72B1. The only issue is bridge judgment about whether the conditions "could have known...likely" are satisfied. Notice that the conditions apply to the BOOT, not to the Rottweiler's later actions except insofar as the BOOT enabled them. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 06:57:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GKv2R06709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:57:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GKuuH06705 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 06:56:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1558.bb.online.no [80.212.214.22]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA08896 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:45:34 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006901c1e587$a810bf20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 22:45:33 +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: "John (MadDog) Probst" ..... > >> >No more beating around the bush, shall we allow the > >> >4H bid? ..... > >> I don't. I apply Law 72B1. I think I rule 5H down 1, rather than 2H up > >> 2 cheers john ..... I did indeed love reading your post below, and I quite well understand how you get 100+ post reactions. > Time to emerge from the woodwork: > > Nope. I tend to chuck an awful lot at 72B1. I "could have known" when I > responded one heart to one heart that this action would be "likely to > damage the non-offending side". No intent is required - that's the > beauty of it. DWS and I fight like tigers over this one, but it is an > essential part of the proprieties. (Indeed at rubber bridge it is just > about the only propriety) > Your next statement is completely in agreement with my understanding of Law27B1, but I have a strong feeling this is exactly where we have the most (if not all) disagreements. > It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity hadn't occurred" > means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that is all that is authorised, which > is why I'm more inclined to 5H minus 1 than 2H making 4. When ruling > this at the table (and I've done so many times) I always explain "... > and if you simply make your bid good [acceptable explanation in England] > then your partner will be looking at that auction and must bid solely > based on what he sees, not on what he can also guess. It could well be > in your best interest to pot the final contract now even if it means > silencing partner". I expect that DWS and I will fight like tigers over > this remark too. > > I'm minded of the long discussion we had here re: "the Rottweiller Coup" > where the only way to go is via 72B1. > > Potted summary of the Rottweiller Coup follows: He multied a 6025 > 1-count out of turn, then silenced his partner by psyching his void. > When they reached slam in diamonds (screaming a singleton club in the > auction) he lead a suit preference club and got his heart ruff. The > howls of rage could be heard even in Svenland. TD ruled result stands, > AC overturned it and we had a 100+ post thread discussing it. I didn't hear the howls, but I can imagine...... However, given that you tell the story with no bias I would most certainly consider intent proven by the facts. This to me carries every indication of a planned setup, an ingenious one but still a setup. I would have involved Law 72B2 (intentional infraction of law), which of course means that I agree with the AC. I believe you have a saying in England: "is not cricket" (?) If I have grasped the meaning it expresses the idea to concentrate upon the fundamental intention with rather than on more or less well written rules for it? I see a parallell to the current discussion around Law27B1. 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 Wed Apr 17 07:32:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GLWFH06759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:32:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GLW9H06755 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:32:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1558.bb.online.no [80.212.214.22]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA29876 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:20:47 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007b01c1e58c$93a17a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204162045.QAA09296@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:20:47 +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: "Steve Willner" ....... > > It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity hadn't occurred" > > means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that is all that is authorised, > > This is an interesting view and might even be correct. However, I > notice that the same wording existed in 1987, and the withdrawn IB > was specifically made AI. What's the point of that if the phrase > you quote means it is in effect UI? This is a mistake made by so many it needs to be clarified again: What happened in 1997 was that the first clause in Law 16C2 was changed from: "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action is authorized, after payment of any penalty imposed by law." to: "For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action ..... is unauthorized" This change was negated explicitly for Law 27B1(a) by the now presumably well known insertion that "Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation...." However, the remainder of that clause in L27B1a: "see (b) following" and Law 27B1(b) itself have been there, essentially unchanged, at least since 1975. Based upon available commentaries it would seem that the understanding of Law27B1(b) back in 1975 as well as in 1987 was that although the information from the insufficient bid would be available as per proprieties and later Law 16C2, it would explicitly not be available because of law27B1(b) except when the information was also conveyed by the replacing bid under Law 27B1(a) as if this bid had been the only bid made by the offender in that round. The law has not been changed on this particular item over the last 25 years, the question is whether our understanding of the law shall have changed. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 07:32:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GLW0N06753 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:32:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GLVsH06749 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:31:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.76.45]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUO00B1VJA1GU@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:20:27 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:22:07 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] insufficient bid To: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: John Probst , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003401c1e595$261235e0$2d4c003e@mycomputer> 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_EDSIpfdWzqvSIO+4UCYzGw)" 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_EDSIpfdWzqvSIO+4UCYzGw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT The original message from D.S on the 28 March was W N E S 1H - P - P Both openings natural. If the T.D asks E will say he did not realise W dealt and opened. The continuation is well known. Israel Erdenbaum --Boundary_(ID_EDSIpfdWzqvSIO+4UCYzGw) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
The original message from D.S on the 28 March was  
 
     W             N           E            S
     1H   -       P     -      P
Both openings natural. If the T.D asks  E will say  he did not realise W dealt and opened.
The continuation is well known.   
Israel Erdenbaum
--Boundary_(ID_EDSIpfdWzqvSIO+4UCYzGw)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 07:55:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GLsx806790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:54:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GLssH06786 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:54:55 +1000 (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 g3GLhdD10804 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:43:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 14:39:08 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > At 02:47 AM 4/16/02, Marvin wrote: > > >So then if you ask me what my partner's 2NT response to a weak two bid > >means, it is not enough for me to say, "Artificial, forcing, asking for > >more information," > > Clearly not enough, since you could use exactly the same words to > describe the "standard" agreement, which is very different from > Ogust. If your explicit agreement includes "Ogust", you must reveal that. You just don't get it, do you? My partners may well forget whether we are playing "standard" responses to 2NT or Ogust, and I don't think I should tell them what my next bid is going to mean. Opener's responses to 2NT are shown on my CC as "Ogust" (inappropriate, but acceptable in lieu of listing all the responses). These are Alertable, explained on request. > > >but to be ethical I should say "Ogust, asking me to > >bid 3C with a bad suit and bad hand, 3D bad suit good hand, 3H good suit > >bad hand, 3S good suit good hand, 3NT solid suit." > > No, you should never enumerate responses. But, but, saying "1430 or 3014 Roman Key Card Blackwood is doing just that! >But nor should you leave > your opponents in the dark about the context of those responses, much > less mislead them. All they have to do is ask my partner what my response to 4NT means if they can't read a CC, so just what is the problem here? > > "Artificial, asking me about the strength of my [suit] and the overall > strength of my hand" sounds about right to me. In the games I play, > "Ogust" would be adequate, if technically improper. Both are technically improper, as I see it. Actually "Forcing" is probably all that is required by the ACBL, going by the CC, which has a black box labeled "2NT Force" and space for explaining opener's rebid, but not responder's 2NT response. > > >Such disclosures of what my possible next bids will mean is going to be > >a big help to my game, as my partners sometimes forget our agreements > >(e.g., 1430 or 3014?). > > When describing a 4NT call, one should say, as appropriate, (1) "Asking > for aces." But most would accept "Blackwood" as an adequate and > synonymous, if technically improper, specification. Or (2) "Asking for > key cards". But most would accept "RKC" as an allowable, if techically > improper, over-specification. They are not the same > thing. "Blackwood" when asking for key cards seems just as misleading > as "key card" when asking for aces. The meaning of 4NT is clearly shown on the CC, which is probably why no variety of Blackwood is Alertable. Questioning the 4NT bid itself is usually unnecessary and unwise, as. 4NT can be natural, unusual notrump, or an inquiry. You want me to tell my partner how I'm interpreting 4NT?? That would be very helpful--to us! If pushed, as when RHO refuses to look at my CC or is visually impaired, my reply would be "Conventional" or "Natural," neither of which is likely to be helpful UI for partner. Then my partner can explain my next bid if necessary. > > "1430" or "3014" is inappropriate, as it is enumerating responses. I'm glad you agree with that. Many do not. > > >Maybe the ACBL figures that players should not explain their own bids > >until L20F is changed to allow it. > > They do, and they are right. Players should not explain their own > bids, or prospective bids. But they should also figure that players > should not offer explanations of asking bids that will mislead their > opponents into thinking they're asking for something other than what > their agreement specifies, such as "Blackwood", which suggests asking > for aces, when asking for key cards, or "asking for more information", > which suggests that a semi-natural (suit, feature, or fragment) bid is > forthcoming, when playing Ogust responses. If opponents need to know what the next bid means, they can look at the CC, question the next bid if it is Alerted, or ask for an "explanation of the auction" (L20F1) if it is not Alerted For weak two bids, the ACBL's instruction for filling out the CC requires that the 2NT (black) box be checked if 2NT is forcing, the . Conventional responses by opener must also be disclosed, but the lack of space makes the entry "Ogust" acceptable. For 4NT, the CC has boxes labeled "Blackwood" "RKC" and "1430", with room for other 4NT conventions. The responses to variations of Blackwood are not Alertable, but opponents are free to ask for their meaning (and invariably do, in my experience, if they are unsure). When partner opens 2C my responses ("controls") are not to be questioned at that point, and the same is true of 4NT. Responses are orally explained, if necessary, after they are made, not before. Of course the CC discloses them in advance for conventional 4NTs, if the opponents will take the trouble to look at it. The ACBL's disclosure requirements, which I try to follow to the letter, seem both legal and adequate. The only major criticism I have is that they merely encourage the disclosure of previously undisclosed agreements, and/or pertinent inferences, after the auction is over. That should be a requirement, not an option. 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 Apr 17 08:02:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GM2PN06809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:02:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GM2KH06805 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:02:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3GLp0M15312; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:51:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:38:08 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001b01c1e578$7a7049a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/16/02, Sven Pran wrote: >"Blackwood" is a perfectly correct (initial) answer if 4NT *is* >Blackwood, that is if 5C shows 0 (or 4), 5D shows 1, 5H shows 2 and 4S >shows 3 aces. I have the impression this thread was about the rules in the ACBL. If not, then feel free to disregard this, but *in the ACBL* responding to a question with the name of a convention is not a legal explanation, whatever the meaning of the bid or responses to it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 17 08:09:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GM9f406831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:09:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from splat.mosquitonet.com (splat.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GM9aH06827 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:09:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [209.161.160.2]) by splat.mosquitonet.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g3GLxk501997 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:59:46 -0800 Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:55:57 -0800 (AKDT) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <001b01c1e578$7a7049a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 16 Apr 2002, Sven Pran wrote: > "Blackwood" is a perfectly correct (initial) answer if 4NT *is* Blackwood, > that is if 5C shows 0 (or 4), 5D shows 1, 5H shows 2 and 4S shows 3 > aces. Anything else is not (standard) Blackwood, and then "Blackwood" > is an improper answer. If opponents do not know what standard Blackwood > is then it is their duty to ask again for clarification. > > Similar applies to an answer "Roman Key Card Blackwood", but if your > convention is not strictly according to the original RKCB then you must > not say that it is by using those words alone. > > You can always "escape" by saying "modified Blackwood" or > "modified Roman Key Card Blackwood" (or words to that effect) and > await opponents next question: "modified in what way please?", and > you should always be prepared to give a complete textbook description > on what the convention implies to the finest detail if requested. This reminds me of something that happened in the very first tournament I ever played in. I had read books full of conventions, and knew what most of them were, but had no experience with which ones people actually used. A pair bid to a slam against us, via a 4NT-5C auction. Before the play I asked what kind of Blackwood it was, and they said "key card." I defended the hand on the assumption the closed hand held 4 key cards and concentrated on not giving away an overtrick on a cold slam. Partner had an ace, of course, and was furious at the fact we didnt beat it. I had read books, you see, and knew that there was Blackwood, and there was Roman Blackwood to show which two aces you held, and there was Key-Card Blackwood where 5C=0 or 4 and 5D=1 or 5, and then Roman Key-Card. I had no idea that only two of these four conventions were in common use :)) I looked hurt and asked the opps why they hadn't told me. They laughed in my face. The director laughed in my face - for the second time that day (the first time was when I still thought you could ask to see the previous trick until the next one was led to, not just until you turn your own card face down). But it's about as clear a case of damage from misinformation as there could be - if one of the players at the table isnt familiar with local customs. 99% of the time in tournaments people give the full details when asked, straight blackwood, or RKC, or 1430. I do still occasionally have people say "keycard", and now I know what they mean. But I still feel a tightening in my chest every time I hear someone give the incomplete explanation. I now have quite the opposite disclosure problem. My partner and I very rarely use Blackwood, 4NT meaning something else in our cuebidding auctions. The ACBL rules are such that we don't say anything about 4NT until the end of the auction -- and if we don't use "our" 4NT bid, opponents may take an incorrect inference that we had some particular reason to have not asked for aces. I don't know what the solution is. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 08:24:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GMO8p06854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:24:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GMO2H06850 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:24:02 +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 g3GMCux32216 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:12:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:11:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <200204162045.QAA09296@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200204162045.QAA09296@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 <200204162045.QAA09296@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> Nope. I tend to chuck an awful lot at 72B1. I "could have known" when I >> responded one heart to one heart that this action would be "likely to >> damage the non-offending side". > >Really? Likely? How, exactly? In most bidding systems I know, a hand >with game values and support for the major partner has just opened is >easy to bid. Why mess around and give partner a chance to do something >silly? That's the work of a villain??? > >(Note: on BLML, "villain" is used as shorthand for a player who >wants to win and doesn't care whether he violates the rules.) > >> It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity hadn't occurred" >> means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that is all that is authorised, > >This is an interesting view and might even be correct. However, I >notice that the same wording existed in 1987, and the withdrawn IB >was specifically made AI. What's the point of that if the phrase >you quote means it is in effect UI? > >> If I have it on good authority that the auction as originally posted >> will get us to 4H without adjustment, then once I'd made the >> insufficient bid I would definitely bid 2H, not 4H. I didn't intend it >> (because that's a grave offence) but once I've done it I must make the >> best of it. I definitely could have known ..... > >Now you seem to be saying that there's some irregularity after the >initial 1H IB. Before you were saying that a villain might perpetrate >the 1H bid. Which is it? > Let's say I am the responder and bid 1H unintentionally. I also know how this one is going to be ruled (Oh s**t runs through my mind). Thus I have no intent, but I could have known. Within this context I clearly will bid 2H now, as I know we'll get to 4 anyway. The beauty of 72B1 is that my intent is not relevant. I so rule because it looks like fish and smells like fish, even if it's lemon chicken. In other words you are called back to the table and are faced with me looking entirely innocent, and I explain "I didn't intend to pull off this coup, but once I had bid 1H the law obliges me to pay the penalty and it is not then inappropriate for me to seek the best result available." Perhaps I explain "I've been wanting to try this one out for ages and was waiting for a competent TD to torture" Perhaps I explain "I've spotted this huge hole in the Law and wanted to exploit it" who cares? You "deem" "could know" and off you go. [aside] I'm going to get a shedload of s**t from DWS about this [/aside] >> I'm minded of the long discussion we had here re: "the Rottweiller Coup" >> where the only way to go is via 72B1. > >Yes, there's no doubt that if there's to be an adjustment in that case, >it has to be under 72B1. The only issue is bridge judgment about >whether the conditions "could have known...likely" are satisfied. > >Notice that the conditions apply to the BOOT, not to the Rottweiler's >later actions except insofar as the BOOT enabled them. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 17 08:36:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GMZw506873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:35:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GMZqH06869 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:35:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.76.45]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUO00BIVM8NMF@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:24:25 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:26:05 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] direct question insufficient bid To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <002501c1e59e$15cf86c0$2d4c003e@mycomputer> 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_WFYhmomuAeCXgPi4DjxhOA)" 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_WFYhmomuAeCXgPi4DjxhOA) Content-type: text/plain; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Israel Erdnbaum" To: ; "David Stevenson" > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:26 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid > >Hi David > > > > Having admitted that you are 'legally right'. May I ask you.? > 1] The bidding goes 1H - p- -2 H * Oh I have a 1H opener > 2] or 1H - p--* 1H Oh I haven't seen you opened > > --No you don't have to explain again the legal difference , *just explain > the reason *why , as E I am, *so much better off* in ex.2. > Best regards > Israel > > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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_WFYhmomuAeCXgPi4DjxhOA) Content-type: text/html; charset=windows-1255 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Israel Erdnbaum" <erdnbaum@netvision.net.il>
To: <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>; "David Stevenson" <bnewsr@blakjak.com>



>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Stevenson" <bridge@blakjak.com>
> To: <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>
> Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid
>
>Hi David
> >
> 
> Having admitted  that you are 'legally right'.   May I ask you.?

> 1]  The bidding goes     1H - p- -2 H *     Oh I have a 1H opener

> 2] or                            1H - p--* 1H   Oh I haven't seen you
opened
> > --No you don't have to explain again the legal difference , *just
explain
> the reason *why , as E I am, *so much better off*   in ex.2.
> Best regards
> Israel
> > David Stevenson     <bridge@blakjak.com>     Liverpool, England, UK
> >
> >   For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum
> >                  at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm
> > --
> > ========================================================================
> > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with
> > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
> > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/
>

--
========================================================================
(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with
"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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_WFYhmomuAeCXgPi4DjxhOA)-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 08:37:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GMasr06891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:36:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GMamH06887 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:36:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA21211; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:25:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200204162225.PAA21211@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:55:32 EDT." <4.3.2.7.0.20020415113704.00aa03b0@pop.starpower.net> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:25:48 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I haven't been participating in this thread, aside from some nonsensical blather about trying to type italic letters by tilting my typewriter. I've gone back and tried to read the points made in this thread. Here are some of my thoughts about it. A large portion of the argument has been centered around whether NCBO's (or ZO's, or SO's) should be given leeway to "run the game for the benefit of their members", as David put it. David is, I think, arguing in the context of banning psychs of conventional bids, which he says is a legitimate interpretation of the Laws; others think it isn't, others think it follows the letter but not the spirit, and still others think it's legitimate because the WBF has pronounced it so. But I'm going to go further, and imagine a hypothetical case where a ZO decides that revokes are getting to be a serious problem in their part of the world, and that they henceforth are going to penalize all revokes three tricks (unless a larger penalty is called for by L64C). This unquestionably goes against the Laws. My question is, "So what?" Yeah, I know, everyone is shocked that I would even ask such a question. I'm playing devil's advocate here, to some extent. I'm not necessarily saying it wouldn't be a bad thing; but I think the question of why it would be a bad thing needs to be addressed, discussed, and debated. Personally, I do not see how this single deviation by a ZO would do any harm to anyone, or to the game of bridge. I don't see any obvious reason *why* there needs to be a uniform set of Laws for every region, or why having a uniform set is even beneficial. My concern is that I think a lot of us have been taking it as axiomatic, a principle that is taken for granted and shouldn't even be questioned, that the WBF laws are the final word and should be the final word for all the other organizations. But I'm now asking that this axiom be defended. I believe that having a real discussion of this point will help shed light on some principles that would help us in our discussions of other issues, such as the ones involving regulation of psychs, conventions, and natural bids. ******************** Some other comments on some specific points: Tim, responding to 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. Unfortunately, Tim didn't give specifics here, so I don't know what evidence he's talking about. I'm not even sure what would constitute "evidence that they can't be trusted". Perhaps the main problem is that I (and others, like David) assume that the main purpose of bridge is a game where the players enjoy themselves, and that everything else, including the Laws, should be subordinate to that purpose; while others assume that the Laws are the most important thing about the game. The second point of view makes no sense to me. Assuming that enjoyment *is* the most important thing, then does Tim have evidence from Austria/ACBL/EBU that the players in their tournaments aren't enjoying themselves? I kind of doubt it. * * * * * * Wayne, responding to David, wrote: > > There is a reasonable reg operated by certain authorities. It is > > believed to be legal. It is believed to be good in the bridge played > > under those authorities' auspices. Why not leave it be? > > > > Because it is patently absurd to give local regulators the power to make > regulations that to conflict with the laws of the game. Why is it absurd? "The laws of the game" are what the WBF believes the laws should be; if you give local regulators the power to make contradictory regulations, you have a scenario where some bridge games are run under one set of rules and some other bridge games in other parts of the world are run under a slightly different set of rules. Nobody has ever explained to me why this scenario is such a bad thing that it should be called "absurd", much less "patently absurd". * * * * * * Eric wrote: > Nobody has suggested that the WBF does not have the power to permit the > Austrians to ban psychs. But many here have argued that they have a > moral obligation to amend L40 either to make the existing loophole > explicit or to close it; they should not compromise their authority > just because the most comfortable thing to do right now is look the > other way. Eric preceded this with a discussion about the ACBL previously leaving it up to local units whether to ban blacks. I do not think this analogy is relevant. There are moral issues involved in racial discrimination. There are, however, no moral issues involved in the rules of the game, or in the rules of any game (beyond such basics as treating people equally and fairly, and avoiding favoritism). Bridge does not become a more or less moral game if the rules are changed to allow or disallow psychs, or allow or disallow some conventions or some natural calls or some systems or whatever. It becomes a slightly different game, but the rule change has no moral effect whatsoever. So arguing from the basis of "moral obligation" is, I think, inappropriate. (I acknowledge that Eric was attributing this argument to others and not necessarily making it himself.) It seems to me, though, that when people would prefer the rules to be a certain way so that they can do something they'd like to do (psych conventional openings or play their pet forcing pass system or whatever), and they get denied because the majority don't want to play by those rules, some people try to turn it into a moral issue. This, to me, is an abuse of the concept of "morality". * * * * * * Eric wrote: > . . . There are good reasons for the WBF to let NCBOs > run the game however they please, regardless of what their players > want. But let's not pretend that doing anything their governing bodies > choose to do is the same thing as carrying out the consensual will of > their respective memberships. This is a good point. Certainly, when the ACBL Board of Directors makes regulations, they do not always have the best interests of the members at heart. Sometimes they make rules that benefit themselves or other influential top players. What isn't clear, though, is why the WBF should necessarily do any better. The members of the WBF committees are drawn from the same species (Homo occasionally sapiens) as in the ACBL, and thus are subject to the same failings as the rest of humankind, such as being tempted to favor their friends. Plus, the WBF is one step further removed from rank-and-file bridge players than the ACBL. Probably, the ones who really know what's in the best interest of members' enjoyment are at the local and club levels, and perhaps they ought to be given a lot of leeway in running the games as they see fit. However, there's probably a lot more practical disadvantage to having games run with all different sets of rules within a zone, than there is to having games in different zones run with different sets of rules. -- 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 Apr 17 08:39:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GMdU606912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:39:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GMdNH06907 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:39:24 +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 g3GMSLx32244 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:28:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:26:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <200204162045.QAA09296@cfa183.harvard.edu> <007b01c1e58c$93a17a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <007b01c1e58c$93a17a20$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 <007b01c1e58c$93a17a20$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Steve Willner" >....... >> > It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity hadn't occurred" >> > means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that is all that is authorised, >> >> This is an interesting view and might even be correct. However, I >> notice that the same wording existed in 1987, and the withdrawn IB >> was specifically made AI. What's the point of that if the phrase >> you quote means it is in effect UI? > In my judgement, I don't ever refer to Law 16 in this particular situation. If the irregularity hadn't occurred I'd be looking at 6-9. That is what the bidding tells me. Just as an aside, I asked the Rottweiller whether he'd bid on over 4H and he said "absolutely not, even if I have 4-7 points more than I'd promised, as partner bid 4H on a LOTT basis without making a game try and then converting." This is a take I hadn't considered. He also said it was cheating to bid 4H over 2H. That I expected from him. btw Sven the Rottweiller Coup was entirely unintentional. There is no doubt in anyone's mind. He had the law read to him, and then took a massive position. He is still ambivalent about whether he infringed the Law, but agrees he could never do it again. >This is a mistake made by so many it needs to be clarified again: >What happened in 1997 was that the first clause in Law 16C2 was >changed from: > >"For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn >action is authorized, after payment of any penalty imposed by law." > >to: > >"For the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn >action ..... is unauthorized" > >This change was negated explicitly for Law 27B1(a) by the now >presumably well known insertion that "Law 16C2 does not apply >to this situation...." > >However, the remainder of that clause in L27B1a: "see (b) following" >and Law 27B1(b) itself have been there, essentially unchanged, at >least since 1975. > >Based upon available commentaries it would seem that the >understanding of Law27B1(b) back in 1975 as well as in 1987 was >that although the information from the insufficient bid would be >available as per proprieties and later Law 16C2, it would explicitly >not be available because of law27B1(b) except when the information >was also conveyed by the replacing bid under Law 27B1(a) as if >this bid had been the only bid made by the offender in that round. > >The law has not been changed on this particular item over the last >25 years, the question is whether our understanding of the law shall >have changed. > >Sven > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 17 09:02:10 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GN1wg06969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:01:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GN1qH06965 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:01:53 +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 g3GMoVM14832; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:50:32 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 18:35:10 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/16/02, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >[aside] I'm going to get a shedload of s**t from DWS about this [/aside] I sincerely hope you do. When I was at US Navy OCS, one of the classes was on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, aka the "rocks and shoals". Article 134 of that law says, in effect "and anything else you do that we don't like is illegal, too." You seem to be using Law 72B1 in that same way. I didn't think much of that idea in OCS, and I don't think much of it at bridge. 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 17 09:02:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GN2Ng06981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:02:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GN2HH06977 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:02:18 +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 16xbmu-000152-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:51:00 +0100 Received: from modem-234.blue-streak-damsel.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.241.234] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xbmt-0000o0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:51:00 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id XAA06508; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:51:07 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: "John (MadDog) Probst" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 16 Apr 2002 23:42:46 +0100 In-Reply-To: "John's message of "Tue, 16 Apr 2002 21:01:26 +0100" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 54 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" writes: > Time to emerge from the woodwork: > > Nope. I tend to chuck an awful lot at 72B1. I "could have known" when I > responded one heart to one heart that this action would be "likely to > damage the non-offending side". No intent is required - that's the > beauty of it. No, but it is required that "the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity". > DS and I fight like tigers over this one, but it is an essential > part of the proprieties. (Indeed at rubber bridge it is just about > the only propriety) > > It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity hadn't occurred" > means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that is all that is authorised, which > is why I'm more inclined to 5H minus 1 than 2H making 4. When ruling > this at the table (and I've done so many times) I always explain "... > and if you simply make your bid good [acceptable explanation in England] > then your partner will be looking at that auction and must bid solely > based on what he sees, not on what he can also guess. It could well be > in your best interest to pot the final contract now even if it means > silencing partner". I expect that DWS and I will fight like tigers over > this remark too. Not only did the insufficient bid in the original scenario *not* damage the non-offending side (the offending side got the same result as all the non-insufficient-bidders, and -- as far as we know -- as they would have done without the irrregularity), but I am perplexed at how anybody could think it was likely to. In any case, since the offending side did not "gain an advantage through the irregularity", there is no grounds for adjusting on the basis of L72B1. > I'm minded of the long discussion we had here re: "the Rottweiller Coup" > where the only way to go is via 72B1. > > Potted summary of the Rottweiller Coup follows: He multied a 6025 > 1-count out of turn, then silenced his partner by psyching his void. > When they reached slam in diamonds (screaming a singleton club in the > auction) he lead a suit preference club and got his heart ruff. The > howls of rage could be heard even in Svenland. TD ruled result stands, > AC overturned it and we had a 100+ post thread discussing it. In that case the offending side *did* "gain an advantage through the irregularity". So L72B1 might apply. 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 Wed Apr 17 09:20:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GNKbx07011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:20:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GNKVH07006 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:20:31 +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 16xc4Z-0002Mk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:09:15 +0100 Received: from modem-174.dwarf-lion-fish.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.137.4.174] helo=laphraoig.localdomain) by mail18.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xc4X-0001Ky-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:09:14 +0100 Received: (from jeremy@localhost) by laphraoig.localdomain (8.9.3/8.9.3) id AAA06729; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:09:21 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: laphraoig.localdomain: jeremy set sender to j.rickard@bristol.ac.uk using -f To: "John (MadDog) Probst" Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <200204162045.QAA09296@cfa183.harvard.edu> From: Jeremy Rickard Date: 17 Apr 2002 00:07:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: "John's message of "Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:11:22 +0100" Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 84 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" writes: > In article <200204162045.QAA09296@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >> Nope. I tend to chuck an awful lot at 72B1. I "could have known" when I > >> responded one heart to one heart that this action would be "likely to > >> damage the non-offending side". > > > >Really? Likely? How, exactly? In most bidding systems I know, a hand > >with game values and support for the major partner has just opened is > >easy to bid. Why mess around and give partner a chance to do something > >silly? That's the work of a villain??? > > > >(Note: on BLML, "villain" is used as shorthand for a player who > >wants to win and doesn't care whether he violates the rules.) > > > >> It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity hadn't occurred" > >> means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that is all that is authorised, > > > >This is an interesting view and might even be correct. However, I > >notice that the same wording existed in 1987, and the withdrawn IB > >was specifically made AI. What's the point of that if the phrase > >you quote means it is in effect UI? > > > >> If I have it on good authority that the auction as originally posted > >> will get us to 4H without adjustment, then once I'd made the > >> insufficient bid I would definitely bid 2H, not 4H. I didn't intend it > >> (because that's a grave offence) but once I've done it I must make the > >> best of it. I definitely could have known ..... > > > >Now you seem to be saying that there's some irregularity after the > >initial 1H IB. Before you were saying that a villain might perpetrate > >the 1H bid. Which is it? > > > Let's say I am the responder and bid 1H unintentionally. I also know how > this one is going to be ruled (Oh s**t runs through my mind). Thus I > have no intent, but I could have known. Could have known what? That "the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side"? That by bidding 1H and getting to 4H the non-offending side would do worse than if you had made a sufficient bid ... and got to 4H? > Within this context I clearly will bid 2H now, as I know we'll get > to 4 anyway. The beauty of 72B1 is that my intent is not relevant. I > so rule because it looks like fish and smells like fish, even if > it's lemon chicken. > > In other words you are called back to the table and are faced with me > looking entirely innocent, and I explain "I didn't intend to pull off > this coup, What coup? Finding an uncertain route to 4H via an insufficient bid instead of the more conventional route that everybody else found? You cunning devil! > but once I had bid 1H the law obliges me to pay the penalty and it > is not then inappropriate for me to seek the best result available." > > Perhaps I explain "I've been wanting to try this one out for ages and > was waiting for a competent TD to torture" > > Perhaps I explain "I've spotted this huge hole in the Law and wanted to > exploit it" A "huge hole" in the law that allows dastardly scoundrels to get the same result by making an insufficient bid that they would have done without? > who cares? You "deem" "could know" and off you go. Um, you also have to deem the bit about "the offending side gain[ing] an advantage through the irregularity". > [aside] I'm going to get a shedload of s**t from DWS about this > [/aside] 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 Wed Apr 17 09:25:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GNPfW07026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:25:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3GNPZH07022 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:25:36 +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 g3GNEYx32345 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:14:34 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:12:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 , Jeremy Rickard writes snip > >Not only did the insufficient bid in the original scenario *not* >damage the non-offending side (the offending side got the same result >as all the non-insufficient-bidders, and -- as far as we know -- as >they would have done without the irrregularity), but I am perplexed at >how anybody could think it was likely to. In any case, since the >offending side did not "gain an advantage through the irregularity", >there is no grounds for adjusting on the basis of L72B1. > Uh uh. What everybody else scored is irrelevant. The non-offenders were damaged because they should (could?) have been defending 2H (or 5H, and I'm not decided on that yet) >> I'm minded of the long discussion we had here re: "the Rottweiller Coup" >> where the only way to go is via 72B1. >> >> Potted summary of the Rottweiller Coup follows: He multied a 6025 >> 1-count out of turn, then silenced his partner by psyching his void. >> When they reached slam in diamonds (screaming a singleton club in the >> auction) he lead a suit preference club and got his heart ruff. The >> howls of rage could be heard even in Svenland. TD ruled result stands, >> AC overturned it and we had a 100+ post thread discussing it. > >In that case the offending side *did* "gain an advantage >through the irregularity". So L72B1 might apply. > I think we most of us agreed on this that it certainly did. But only because he had a 1-count. Had it been 8-9 points we couldn't use L72B1 most of us felt. > Jeremy. > -- 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 Apr 17 09:40:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GNdk307052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:39:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GNdbH07038 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:39:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.221] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xcHy-0007Tb-00; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:23:07 +0100 Message-ID: <00ac01c1e59e$88dd9120$dd24e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20020402104818-R01050000-24424500-4627-11D6-9D3A-901C70F48078-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:16:38 +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: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L11A >. Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) > penalties on their own initiative." How can a player > forfeit a right he does not have? > +=+ However, the discretion of the Director to waive a penalty is limited to occasions when it is requested by the non-offending side. The NOS does have some rights in the matter when a penalty is prescribed by law and is not a Director's discretionary penalty. ~ 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 Apr 17 09:40:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GNdoB07054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:39:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GNdfH07046 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:39:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.221] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xcI2-0007Tb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:23:11 +0100 Message-ID: <00ae01c1e59e$8b1fe000$dd24e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <006901c1e587$a810bf20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:08:41 +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: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > > Your next statement is completely in agreement with my > understanding of Law27B1, but I have a strong feeling this > is exactly where we have the most (if not all) disagreements. > > > It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity > > hadn't occurred" means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that > > is all that is authorised, which is why I'm more inclined to > > 5H minus 1 than 2H making 4. When ruling this at the > > table (and I've done so many times) I always explain "... > > and if you simply make your bid good [acceptable > > explanation in England] then your partner will be looking > > at that auction and must bid solely based on what he > > sees, not on what he can also guess. It could well be > > in your best interest to pot the final contract now even > > if it means silencing partner". I expect that DWS and I > > will fight like tigers over this remark too. > > .+=+ I found myself thinking that it would be very convenient in some partnerships to bid insufficiently on 11 - 13 HCP and then correct to 2H. This would be an ideal method of allowing partner to pass if he happened to have opened on a hand of 8 or 9 HCP, or convert to 4H if he had full opening values. If the information that an IB has opening values were AI, the insufficient response could become the standard method of the partnership in responding with limited opening values to 1 Major. ~ 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 Apr 17 09:40:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3GNdnZ07053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:39:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3GNddH07041 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:39:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.36.221] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xcI0-0007Tb-00; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:23:09 +0100 Message-ID: <00ad01c1e59e$8a028920$dd24e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:37:19 +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: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) > In-Reply-To: <006b01c1e517$2c84e540$4844e150@dodona> > > > I made no statement as to whether the regulations > > > were in the best interest of Austrians. Even Grattan > > > agreed that the regulation as translated was clearly > > > illegal. > > > > > +=+ 'Even' ? +=+ > > Grattan, I see you as one of the strongest proponents > of countries having local regulations rather than having > the WBF enforce a single set of laws. In that context > I think "even" makes sense. > > Tim > +=+ Ah, if that were so, yes. But two things: first of all my argument is that the laws should be universal but should set principles and allow wide tolerance for regulation according to the local bridge environment, and indeed according to the standard of tournament. I observe that NBOs and Zones find the means to do what they are determined to do. Secondly, I think the Austrians are merely wrong in the way they approach their regulation. Their words need to link to the potential for fewer than eight points and/or to 'conventional' rather than Rule of Eighteen. If I recall correctly the first example we were given of the Austrian practice showed a hand of six or seven HCP? Or they can legitimately use the procedure which the ACBL and the English use - a condition applied to the use of conventions not allowing their use with openers that fail to meet stated minimum standards. ~ 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 Apr 17 10:08:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H08DD07126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:08:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H088H07122 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:08:09 +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 TAA05177 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA09661 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:56:52 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 19:56:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204162356.TAA09661@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Let's say I am the responder and bid 1H unintentionally. I also know how > this one is going to be ruled (Oh s**t runs through my mind). Thus I > have no intent, but I could have known. Within this context I clearly > will bid 2H now, as I know we'll get to 4 anyway. The beauty of 72B1 is > that my intent is not relevant. My copy of L72B1b contains the phrase "at the time of his irregularity." Are you saying the 2H bid is an irregularity? If so, I stick by my description ("bizarre") of your ruling. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 10:12:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H0CEN07142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:12:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H0C9H07138 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:12:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id KAA29649 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:13:58 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:58:21 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Sabbath was made for... (was Psychs and the Rule of 18) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:51:16 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 17/04/2002 09:58:15 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: [big snip] >But I'm going to go further, and imagine a >hypothetical case where a ZO decides that revokes >are getting to be a serious problem in their part >of the world, and that they henceforth are going to >penalize all revokes three tricks (unless a larger >penalty is called for by L64C). This >unquestionably goes against the Laws. My question >is, "So what?" > >Yeah, I know, everyone is shocked that I would even >ask such a question. I'm playing devil's advocate >here, to some extent. I'm not necessarily saying >it wouldn't be a bad thing; but I think the >question of why it would be a bad thing needs to be >addressed, discussed, and debated. > >Personally, I do not see how this single deviation >by a ZO would do any harm to anyone, or to the game >of bridge. I don't see any obvious reason *why* >there needs to be a uniform set of Laws for every >region, or why having a uniform set is even >beneficial. [big snip] 1. The hypothetical principle of non-uniform Laws is not hypothetical, as there already are Zonal Options existing. 2. The nature of bridge, the game, exists independently of the Laws. Example: In the 1930s a Laws revision ridiculously increased vulnerable penalties. This proposition was thought to be so contrary to the nature of bridge that it was repealed a year later. 3. Different cultures play different natures of bridge. 4. Therefore, in an ideal world, the Laws of Bridge should be as skeletal as possible. This would allow SOs and ZOs maximum freedom to regulate the nature of bridge to fit the local culture. 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 Apr 17 10:55:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H0sEw07172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:54:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3H0s3H07158 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:54:04 +1000 (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 16xdWw-0002G0-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:42:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:11:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop> <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <00b601c1e32d$38b983c0$8249e150@dodona> <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415110342.00aa0560@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415110342.00aa0560@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 09:06 PM 4/13/02, David wrote: > >>Wayne Burrows writes >> >> >Interpretation maybe but only the interpretation that a rational >> reading of >> >the laws would come to without a knowledge of some convoluted >> interpretation >> >that has been made and ineffectively promulgated. >> >> Ok, you have had your rant. We have tried to explain why you are >>wrong, and you have just gone on. >> >> The rest of the world is wrong, and Wayne is right. OK, so be it. >> >> But why you really want to spoil the game for others just because you >>cannot see a simple interpretation, or perhaps because you do not want >>to see a simple interpretation, is beyond me. >> >> >Why not simply revise the laws so that they say what they mean. >> >> Because when they are revised you will still disagree with what others >>interpret them as. > >I think David is being a bit too harsh on Wayne. > >David is certainly correct that there is no question as to the legality >of the Austrian ban on psychs, or the ACBL's ban on the 9-point 1NT >opening. The WBF has addressed the question, and has pronounced upon >it. End of discussion (at least with respect to the current state of >the Law). I have never said that the Austrian ban on psyches is legal, and I prefer not to be quoted as saying so. The EBL ban on psyches is legal. What is the difference? - the EBL is banning psyches of conventional bids, which is legal under L40D: the Austrians are banning psyches of natural openings [inter alia]. >But Wayne is correct as well. There is no way in h--l that someone >simply reading TFLB with no knowledge of the existence, much less >substance, of the WBF promulgation on the subject would come to the >conclusion that the legality of the Austrian or ACBL regs was in any >sense obvious, or even suggested. While that is true, it is not relevant. I am quite sure that if I picked up a golf rule book, and read it through, I would miss a lot of points. You do not learn and understand rules just by looking at a book. We have discovered the depth of the effect of the laws by discussion here and elsewhere over a period of time and many people. >I do not, of course, believe that "the rest of the world is wrong, and >Wayne is right". But neither do I beleive that the rest of the world >is right, and Wayne is wrong. To be realistic, David should have said >that the WBF and those that are privy to its workings are right, and >the rest of the world, Wayne included, are wrong. Why should I say that if I do not mean it? I just mean that when we find out what the situation is it does not necessarily make a lot of sense to just say "It isn't" when there is a strong body of evidence in its favour. I especially dislike it when it does no good. It reminds me of the terrorist approach: screw you, we are doing it our way. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 10:55:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H0sG007174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:54:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H0s5H07161 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:54:06 +1000 (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 16xdWw-0002G1-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:42:48 +0000 Message-ID: <9PpBjACl3Ev8EwWV@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:14:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <001b01c1e512$a03cdd80$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001b01c1e512$a03cdd80$2d2fd2cc@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 >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> I would suggest that "Blackwood" is a far less ethical reply even than >> would be "asking for aces". So while David and I may agree as to what >> is obviously ethical in this situation, the ACBL seems to have other >ideas. >> >So then if you ask me what my partner's 2NT response to a weak two bid >means, it is not enough for me to say, "Artificial, forcing, asking for >more information," but to be ethical I should say "Ogust, asking me to >bid 3C with a bad suit and bad hand, 3D bad suit good hand, 3H good suit >bad hand, 3S good suit good hand, 3NT solid suit." Yeah, Marv, tres amusant. If it is Ogust, then you should say it is Ogust, certainly, but there is no need to list the replies. But if a player were to ask what he replies are, you would have to answer them. The most important thing is not to hide things from your opponents. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 10:55:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H0sGJ07173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:54:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H0s6H07163 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:54:07 +1000 (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 16xdWy-0002G7-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 00:42:49 +0000 Message-ID: <1vkD7PCT8Ev8Ew1a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 17:19:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts References: <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Ying writes > >Um...maybe where you come from, but from around here on the >East Coast of the US, this X is frequently played as showing >4S by the expert community (including several world and >national champions). How else do you find your 4-4 spade >fit when the opponent sticks a bid in. It also encourages >people to bid 3-card majors in your face with a raise of their >partner. And this does not constitute a psyhce since the ACBL >designates that 3+ card suits are natural. Whether it is a psyche is nothing to do with what the ACBL designates: it is a question of what your agreements are. If 1S shows 3+cards then you are required to tell the opponents so using whatever tools the ACBL designates, and certainly in answer to a question. If it shows 4+ cards then it is a psyche when you do it on three cards. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 11:34:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H1Xo807208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:33:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H1XiH07204 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:33:45 +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 g3H1Mhx00384 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 02:22:43 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 02:20:04 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <200204162356.TAA09661@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200204162356.TAA09661@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 <200204162356.TAA09661@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> Let's say I am the responder and bid 1H unintentionally. I also know how >> this one is going to be ruled (Oh s**t runs through my mind). Thus I >> have no intent, but I could have known. Within this context I clearly >> will bid 2H now, as I know we'll get to 4 anyway. The beauty of 72B1 is >> that my intent is not relevant. > >My copy of L72B1b contains the phrase "at the time of his >irregularity." Are you saying the 2H bid is an irregularity? If so, I >stick by my description ("bizarre") of your ruling. > Gah! I think I've lost this one. I'm beginning to think that I can't enforce ".. when you see the 2H bid that is all you can see ..". Depressing. cheers john >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 15:03:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H52ta07371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:02:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3H52oH07367 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:02:50 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 24109 invoked by uid 504); 17 Apr 2002 04:51:30 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.01993 secs); 17 Apr 2002 04:51:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.149) by 0 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2002 04:51:29 -0000 Message-ID: <037901c1e5ca$e9907ec0$8316b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop><3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona><009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop><37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk><003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop><00b601c1e32d$38b983c0$8249e150@dodona><007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop><4.3.2.7.0.20020415110342.00aa0560@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:46:23 +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: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 4:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > Why should I say that if I do not mean it? I just mean that when we > find out what the situation is it does not necessarily make a lot of > sense to just say "It isn't" when there is a strong body of evidence in > its favour. I especially dislike it when it does no good. > > It reminds me of the terrorist approach: screw you, we are doing it > our way. Sounds like the approach a number of NOs etc use. 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 Apr 17 16:21:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H6KRU07417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:20:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3H6KMH07413 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:20:23 +1000 (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 g3H697D16852 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <005601c1e5d6$560ae080$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:04:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 4/16/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >"Blackwood" is a perfectly correct (initial) answer if 4NT *is* > >Blackwood, that is if 5C shows 0 (or 4), 5D shows 1, 5H shows 2 and 4S > >shows 3 aces. > > I have the impression this thread was about the rules in the ACBL. If > not, then feel free to disregard this, but *in the ACBL* responding to a > question with the name of a convention is not a legal explanation, > whatever the meaning of the bid or responses to it. > Yes, even though the CC itself uses names as a shorthand for many conventions: Michaels, Stayman, Smolen, lebensohl, Gerber and others. However, there seems to be an unwritten law that "Stayman" is exempt from the rule, and using some of the others as an explanation seems to be tolerated if not condoned. Few lebensohl users give the name as an explanation, instead saying something like "Requires me to bid 3C, strength undefined at this point, could be weak, says nothing about the club suit," as is proper. 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 Apr 17 16:25:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H6PS707430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:25:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3H6PNH07426 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:25:23 +1000 (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 g3H6E7D18606 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <006401c1e5d7$091e6200$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 23:12:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 now have quite the opposite disclosure problem. My partner and I very > rarely use Blackwood, 4NT meaning something else in our cuebidding > auctions. The ACBL rules are such that we don't say anything about 4NT > until the end of the auction -- and if we don't use "our" 4NT bid, > opponents may take an incorrect inference that we had some particular > reason to have not asked for aces. I don't know what the solution is. > The solution is to do just what you are doing. Explain your auction and any derivable inferences before the opening lead is made. It isn't the sort of information that opponents need during the auction, and describe any slam conventions you employ on the CC lines provided for that purpose. 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 Apr 17 16:42:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H6gT507447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:42:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3H6gOH07443 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:42:25 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.19.76] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16xixs-0000Oc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:30:49 +0100 Message-ID: <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1vkD7PCT8Ev8Ew1a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 07:31:23 +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: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts > Ted Ying writes > > > >. And this does not constitute a psyhce since the ACBL > > designates that 3+ card suits are natural. > ........................ \x/ .................. > If it shows 4+ cards then it is a psyche when you do it > on three cards. > -- > David Stevenson > +=+ (1) It might be thought a deviation rather than a psyche. (2) It is not the ACBL but the Law Book that says a bid on a three card suit is not conventional. ~ 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 Apr 17 17:23:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H7MxD07482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:22:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H7MrH07478 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:22:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3H770H02515 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:07:00 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 17 09:03:13 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGNXVCBAUY001NV3@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:06:12 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFGMRQ>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:05:50 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:06:10 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Sven Pran'" , 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 > > > > Nope. I tend to chuck an awful lot at 72B1. I "could have > known" when I > > responded one heart to one heart that this action would be > "likely to > > damage the non-offending side". No intent is required - that's the > > beauty of it. DWS and I fight like tigers over this one, > but it is an > > essential part of the proprieties. > > It's clear to me that 27b1 "as though the irrregularity > hadn't occurred" > > means that 1H - 2H shows 6-9 and that is all that is > authorised, which > > is why I'm more inclined to 5H minus 1 than 2H making 4. When ruling > > this at the table (and I've done so many times) I always > explain "... > > and if you simply make your bid good [acceptable > explanation in England] > > then your partner will be looking at that auction and must > bid solely > > based on what he sees, not on what he can also guess. It > could well be > > in your best interest to pot the final contract now even if it means > > silencing partner". I expect that DWS and I will fight > like tigers over > > this remark too. Well, hat off for David who is still trying to convince you, though reading your contributions best advice to him is to stop that. It doesn't work to discuss laws with somebody who made his own. Some of us asked what 'but L16C does not apply' means in L 27B. That is a burden of a question for those who think that UI is available which can't be used. So I expect that no answer will ever be given and I understand that: a normal attitude of self protection. 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 Apr 17 17:38:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H7c5507498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:38:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr (smtp-out-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.25]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H7bxH07494 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:38:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mel-rta5.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.122) by mel-rto6.wanadoo.fr; 17 Apr 2002 09:26:06 +0200 Received: from olivier (193.249.226.238) by mel-rta5.wanadoo.fr; 17 Apr 2002 09:25:59 +0200 Message-ID: <007f01c1e5e0$c2ba2a60$eee2f9c1@olivier> From: "Olivier Beauvillain" To: "bridge-laws" References: <002101c1e568$d7ced360$42033dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:23:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Schelen To: bridge-laws Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 7:03 PM Subject: [BLML] Miss Leading? > The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. > The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. > As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. > > The directors cannot come to an agreement: > Is it allowed to deviate? It is allowed to deviate, but it can't be reccurent, only once, after it's an agreement L40A! What is their agreement on leads of 9/10's? If they have not (strange, never lead before with that holding? etc.), then you can do nothing on this one, but be sure you made good questions ! If they have and didn't annouce it, then you can change score to 11 tricks if you think of it. As always, you need to have complete facts and agreements to be able to give your rulling, Olivier > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 17:52:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H7qbU07515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:52:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H7qVH07511 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:52:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3H7f8H12641 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:41:13 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 17 09:37:19 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGNZ3B6GSS001NWG@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:40:52 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFGPPT>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:40:31 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:40:51 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Sven Pran'" , 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 > > This is a mistake made by so many it needs to be clarified again: I have to admit that this is an answer on the question why UI can't be used when L27 explicitly says that L16C doesn't apply. But is it satisfactory? You are saying that L27 doesn't mean what it says. I tried to explain the changes made in 27 before. No reference to L16 before '97. If you had paid your penalty you could use information from withdrawn calls. Big question then was whether changing an insufficient call into the lowest etc. could be considered a penalty. Formal people might say yes, pragmatists could say no: 'show me the penalty!' The WBFLC should have made an interpretation which it didn't do (Is that true Grattan?). In my country we followed the formal route: penalty paid, no UI. Interpretation in the mean time, what else to do? With plenty of room in the laws to make a different interpretation. Which the EBL seems to have done using a very strange procedure: by publishing a guideline for teaching purposes for TD's giving that the status of law itself. Now '97 came and yes a change in L 16: information from withdrawn calls became unauthorized for the offenders. And apparently the drafting committee did notice that L27B had to be clarified. Is information from a withdrawn insufficient call when replaced by etc..... authorized or not? And now some people are telling me that this LC, of which I was a member at that time, decided for the answer 'it is unauthorized so let us add that L16C does not apply'. Good night. 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 Apr 17 18:01:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H81bj07531 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:01:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H81VH07527 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:01:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3H7o0H15465 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:50:12 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 17 09:46:10 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGNZDSM4CW001NWW@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:49:19 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFGQHA>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:48:58 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:49:17 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'John (MadDog) Probst'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > [aside] I'm going to get a shedload of s**t from DWS about > this [/aside] Warn me when this happens, I'll be there with a second load, from healthy Dutch cows, to keep you busy for a while, preventing tournaments to be tortured by your rulings. You have only one acceptable excuse, difficulties with reading numbers and mixing 27B with 72B. Insufficient bids are still in the top of most occurring irregularities, you know? 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 Apr 17 18:17:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H8HWP07557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:17:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H8HQH07553 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:17:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3H867H22599 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:06:08 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 17 10:02:19 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGNZY2WJBW001NXW@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:05:40 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFGR8X>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:05:19 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:05:39 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > .+=+ I found myself thinking that it would be very convenient > in some partnerships to bid insufficiently on 11 - 13 HCP and > then correct to 2H. This would be an ideal method of allowing > partner to pass if he happened to have opened on a hand of > 8 or 9 HCP, or convert to 4H if he had full opening values. If > the information that an IB has opening values were AI, the > insufficient response could become the standard method of > the partnership in responding with limited opening values to > 1 Major. Goodness Grattan is this all you can find to abuse L27? What about L16C not applying? 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 Apr 17 18:23:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H8N6s07570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:23:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3H8N0H07566 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:23:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3923.bb.online.no [80.212.223.83]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA21322 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:11:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004e01c1e5e7$800fa6c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:11:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kooijman, A. > > > > > This is a mistake made by so many it needs to be clarified again: > > > I have to admit that this is an answer on the question why UI can't be used > when L27 explicitly says that L16C doesn't apply. > But is it satisfactory? You are saying that L27 doesn't mean what it says. What I am saying is what I was taught back in 1980 and how I have ever since understood Law27: Whenever law 27 is involved any attempt to imply Law 16 is irrelevant. Law27B1(b) makes the information conveyed by the insufficient bid unauthorised (except that it doesn't use that term) and imposes the restriction on the offender's partner that his actions subsequent to a correction of the insufficient bid according to law27B1(a) shall be as if the replacement bid is the only one he has seen from the offender in that round. This restriction may in many cases make it difficult, or even impossible for the offending side to reach a favourable contract except by chance, that is the consequence (you may call it "penalty" although the laws don't) of the infraction - the insufficient bid. The reasons why I still stick to this interpretation of Law 27B1 are twofold: 1: It is consistent (and remember the laws has not been changed on this matter for at least 25 years) 2: I fail to see any purpose of Law27B1(b) without this interpretation. I discussed this thread with the chairman of the Norwegian LC a couple of days ago. Without quoting him I have the strongest impression that he completely agrees with me on this matter. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 18:41:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H8fSg07596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:41:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3H8fMH07592 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:41:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.87]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUP00DCPE9RJV@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:29:55 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:31:33 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, "Kooijman, A." Cc: ayala hiler , John Probst , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <000c01c1e5f2$ab9b1bc0$575f003e@mycomputer> 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 May be this is a mistake made by so few?? ----- Original Message ----- Best regards Iseal From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Sven Pran'" ; Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 9:40 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > > > > > This is a mistake made by so many it needs to be clarified again: > > > I have to admit that this is an answer on the question why UI can't be used > when L27 explicitly says that L16C doesn't apply. > But is it satisfactory? You are saying that L27 doesn't mean what it says. > > I tried to explain the changes made in 27 before. > No reference to L16 before '97. If you had paid your penalty you could use > information from withdrawn calls. Big question then was whether changing an > insufficient call into the lowest etc. could be considered a penalty. Formal > people might say yes, pragmatists could say no: 'show me the penalty!' The > WBFLC should have made an interpretation which it didn't do (Is that true > Grattan?). In my country we followed the formal route: penalty paid, no UI. > Interpretation in the mean time, what else to do? With plenty of room in the > laws to make a different interpretation. Which the EBL seems to have done > using a very strange procedure: by publishing a guideline for teaching > purposes for TD's giving that the status of law itself. > > Now '97 came and yes a change in L 16: information from withdrawn calls > became unauthorized for the offenders. And apparently the drafting committee > did notice that L27B had to be clarified. Is information from a withdrawn > insufficient call when replaced by etc..... authorized or not? > > And now some people are telling me that this LC, of which I was a member at > that time, decided for the answer 'it is unauthorized so let us add that > L16C does not apply'. > > > Good night. > > ton > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 18:49:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H8nel07614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:49:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3H8nYH07610 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:49:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3H8cHH03117 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:38:17 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 17 10:34:27 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGO127VKWM001NZ0@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:37:15 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFG4W2>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:36:54 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:37:14 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Sven Pran'" , 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 > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Sven Pran [mailto:svenpran@online.no] > Verzonden: woensdag 17 april 2002 10:12 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > From: "Kooijman, A. > > I have to admit that this is an answer on the question why > UI can't be > used > > when L27 explicitly says that L16C doesn't apply. > > But is it satisfactory? You are saying that L27 doesn't > mean what it says. Sven: > What I am saying is what I was taught back in 1980 and how I have > ever since understood Law27: > > Whenever law 27 is involved any attempt to imply Law 16 is irrelevant. > > Law27B1(b) makes the information conveyed by the insufficient bid > unauthorised (except that it doesn't use that term) and imposes the > restriction on the offender's partner that his actions subsequent to > a correction of the insufficient bid according to law27B1(a) > shall be as > if the replacement bid is the only one he has seen from the > offender in > that round. > > This restriction may in many cases make it difficult, or even > impossible > for the offending side to reach a favourable contract except > by chance, > that is the consequence (you may call it "penalty" although the laws > don't) of the infraction - the insufficient bid. > > The reasons why I still stick to this interpretation of Law 27B1 are > twofold: > 1: It is consistent (and remember the laws has not been > changed on this > matter for at least 25 years) > 2: I fail to see any purpose of Law27B1(b) without this > interpretation. My last try, it seems worth it when even a chairman of a LC is interested. With your interpretation there is no need of any reference to L16 anymore (since '97) nor do we need L27B1b!!!!! Throw it all away and L16C covers your aim. It is because the LC wanted to restrict the consequence of an insufficient bid changed etc.... to its utmost minimum that it added the reference to L16. But of course it would be terrible to allow a result which 'only' could be reached by the irregularity of making an IB. Therefore we need L27B1b in relation with our generous attitude towards the infraction. And yes the wording could have been much better, but it was kind of sport for Edgar Kaplan to change as little as possible in the existing laws when drafting the '97 version. And yes this is my PERSONAL LC member opinion (saves a remark from Grattan) ton > I discussed this thread with the chairman of the Norwegian LC > a couple of > days ago. Without quoting him I have the strongest impression that he > completely agrees with me on this matter. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 19:18:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3H9IHd07636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:18:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3H9IBH07632 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 19:18:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3923.bb.online.no [80.212.223.83]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA12034 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:06:27 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007401c1e5ef$286c1180$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:06:27 +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: "Kooijman, A ..... > With your interpretation there is no need of any reference to L16 anymore > (since '97) nor do we need L27B1b!!!!! Throw it all away and L16C covers > your aim. Exactly, and it will cover the official interpretation the way I understand it has been all the years since before 1980 until last summer - and still is in many areas. (However, L27B1b would still add to the understanding) > > It is because the LC wanted to restrict the consequence of an insufficient > bid > changed etc.... to its utmost minimum that it added the reference to L16. > But of course it would be terrible to allow a result which 'only' could be > reached by the irregularity of making an IB. Therefore we need L27B1b in > relation with our generous attitude towards the infraction. L27B1b was not introduced in 1997, it has been there all the time. The change of law27 in 1997 was no change in itself, it must have been to negate the change in law16 when law27 applies. > > And yes the wording could have been much better, but it was kind of sport > for Edgar Kaplan to change as little as possible in the existing laws when > drafting the '97 version. But your information here tells me a bit about the work done on the laws in 1997, and I certainly begin to wonder what was in their mind at that time. Besides the question of what they really wanted as consequences of an insufficient bid - comes to my mind: The (I believe everybody agree) unhappy Law25B2b2 which hopefully will be removed again as soon as possible. Laws 24 and 49 which makes a card exposed when named during the play but not when named during the auction. (was that intentional?) Just to mention two more items. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 20:16:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HAFii07694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:15:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3HAFYH07683 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:15:35 +1000 (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 16xmIQ-000Dq0-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:04:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 02:28:23 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <200204162045.QAA09296@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >[aside] I'm going to get a shedload of s**t from DWS about this [/aside] At least you have started to argue about the actual case after one hundred and fifty posts of assuming the TD has made an error. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 20:16:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HAFi407693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:15:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HAFXH07680 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:15:34 +1000 (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 16xmIQ-000Dq1-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:04:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 02:33:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <002101c1e568$d7ced360$42033dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <002101c1e568$d7ced360$42033dd4@b0e7g1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen writes >The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. >The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. >As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. You have lost me. The CC says they lead 1st, 3rd and 5th, yes? He has KT952, so he leads the 3rd, as the CC says? What is the problem? >The directors cannot come to an agreement: >Is it allowed to deviate? You are always allowed to false card but it does not seem he has here! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 20:16:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HAFhV07692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:15:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HAFWH07679 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:15:33 +1000 (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 16xmIP-000Dpz-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:04:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 02:22:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@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 >You just don't get it, do you? My partners may well forget whether we >are playing "standard" responses to 2NT or Ogust, and I don't think I >should tell them what my next bid is going to mean. Opener's responses >to 2NT are shown on my CC as "Ogust" (inappropriate, but acceptable in >lieu of listing all the responses). These are Alertable, explained on >request. You just don't get it, do you? You are required to tell opponents what conventions you are playing, and hiding behind some theory of not giving UI is illegal and probably unethical. To avoid giving the meaning by not saying whether it is Ogust or not is unacceptable because it is against the Laws [and also against the regulations of the ACBL]. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 20:38:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HAbTW07720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:37:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HAbNH07716 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:37:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3HAQ2u30809; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:26:02 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3HAPwX14500; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:26:02 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:25:58 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > Ben Schelen writes > >The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. > >The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. > >As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. > > You have lost me. > > The CC says they lead 1st, 3rd and 5th, yes? > > He has KT952, so he leads the 3rd, as the CC says? > > What is the problem? The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from a 3 or 4 card suit, the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. IMHO, If a pair routinely leads either the 9 or 2 from the holding above and calls it "3rd/5th", they are trying to hide their true agreements. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 20:55:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HAtNr07751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:55:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HAtCH07738 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:55:13 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3HAhtm25776 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:43:55 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:43 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question 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: John wrote: > Uh uh. What everybody else scored is irrelevant. The non-offenders were > damaged because they should (could?) have been defending 2H (or 5H, and > I'm not decided on that yet) I disagree. If the TD gives the IBer the impression that he can correct to 2H and his partner will be free to bid on without penalty or restriction then 2H is what he will choose. If the TD makes it clear that partner will be obliged to bid as if 2H shows 6-9 (or whatever) then the IBer will just correct to 4H barring his partner. I still think the laws would be better if be didn't try and mix UI and mechanical penalties for a single offence. 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 Apr 17 20:55:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HAtMk07750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:55:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HAtBH07737 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:55:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3HAhrv25760 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:43:53 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:43 +0100 (BST) 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: <200204162225.PAA21211@mailhub.irvine.com> Adam asked: > > >> +=+ It is legitimate to trust the regulator to regulate > >> for its own tournaments. > > >The evidence, from Austria, ACBL, and EBU, sadly indicates the > opposite. > > Unfortunately, Tim didn't give specifics here, so I don't know what > evidence he's talking about. I'm not even sure what would constitute > "evidence that they can't be trusted". For the record I mean "Cannot be trusted to act within the words and spirit of the international laws" not "cannot be trusted to act on the desires of the majority of their members" - more on that later. The examples: Law 40E says "such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method" - these words are, IMO, absolutely fundamental to the whole game. The ACBL has resorted to using 40D to restrict the style and judgement of any player playing a natural 10-12 NT. (Ie they may not upgrade even the world's best 9 count unless thery forego all conventions). The Law says that natural bids "within a king of average strength" may not be regulated. The EBU uses L40D to get around this by restricting the use of conventions if a bid doesn't conform to eg "rule of 18". Highly distributional hands with superb playing strength may not conform to rules of 17/18 etc. Austria has a regulation banning psyches in pairs competitions (according to the translation I read). They make no pretence of this complying with the laws. Italy apparently bans psyches on fewer than 8 points - (I guess they still haven't forgiven Hamman). > Perhaps the main problem is that I (and others, like David) assume > that the main purpose of bridge is a game where the players enjoy > themselves, and that everything else, including the Laws, should be > subordinate to that purpose; while others assume that the Laws are the > most important thing about the game Well, it seems to obvious to me that the laws should be *designed* to ensure that players can enjoy the game. Once the laws are established however (whether globally or by the club) it is generally necessary that those rules are enforced or enjoyment will suffer. (I don't like playing in clubs where UI is regularly abused and the abuse is tolerated). I would quite happily compete in a special "hesitation event" where one is actively encouraged to create and abuse UI - I just don't want to see such events becoming mainstream. > Why is it absurd? "The laws of the game" are what the WBF believes > the laws should be; if you give local regulators the power to make > contradictory regulations, you have a scenario where some bridge games > are run under one set of rules and some other bridge games in other > parts of the world are run under a slightly different set of rules. I suspect that divergences would grow over time. I don't think this is the best way forward. I certainly think the existing laws should be changed if this is indeed the path the WBF wishes to pursue. Cohesive laws benefit: Formal international competition - how would players representing their country who have only faced the single domestic system fare at a championship? Internet bridge - a fast growing area and quite possibly a major part of the future of the game, the more the laws fragment the harder it becomes for players from different countries to participate. Government recognition - Which could lead to, eg, more funding for promoting the game in schools and creating a long term future for the game. And for those who care it will certainly assist in gaining IOC acceptance and TV coverage. Personally I also have concerns that changes to the laws can drive a wedge between the rubber and duplicates which I consider a bad thing. Just my view. 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 Apr 17 20:55:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HAtOY07752 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:55:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HAtEH07741 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:55:15 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3HAhuQ25799 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:43:56 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:43 +0100 (BST) 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: <00ad01c1e59e$8a028920$dd24e150@dodona> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan, I see you as one of the strongest proponents > > of countries having local regulations rather than having > > the WBF enforce a single set of laws. In that context > > I think "even" makes sense. > > > +=+ Ah, if that were so, yes. But two things: first of all > my argument is that the laws should be universal but > should set principles and allow wide tolerance for > regulation according to the local bridge environment, > and indeed according to the standard of tournament. I sorry Grattan but I cannot envisage any situation where there is a substantive difference in result between your statement and mine. If you have "principles and allow wide tolerance for regulation" you can't enforce a single set of laws. > Secondly, I think the Austrians are merely wrong in > the way they approach their regulation. Their words In other words you think that the regulation *as written* is illegal but that the WBF would condone a regulation with similar effect if written under the auspices of L40D. We are agreed. > need to link to the potential for fewer than eight points There is no link to "points" in the laws, they could link to "hands of king or more below average strength" but that is not the same thing (and if you can find a single competent player that thinks "points"="strength" I will cry). They certainly can't use that link to restrict psyches though - only agreed light opening actions. > and/or to 'conventional' rather than Rule of Eighteen. If I did actually take the trouble to write out such a regulation despite disagreeing violently with the principle behind it. 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 Apr 17 20:56:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HAups07776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:56:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HAujH07772 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:56:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48721.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.62.81]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3HAjMh07083 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:45:22 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:46:24 +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] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French writes > > >>You just don't get it, do you? My partners may well forget whether we >>are playing "standard" responses to 2NT or Ogust, and I don't think I >>should tell them what my next bid is going to mean. Opener's responses >>to 2NT are shown on my CC as "Ogust" (inappropriate, but acceptable in >>lieu of listing all the responses). These are Alertable, explained on >>request. >> > > You just don't get it, do you? You are required to tell opponents > what conventions you are playing, and hiding behind some theory of not > giving UI is illegal and probably unethical. > > To avoid giving the meaning by not saying whether it is Ogust or not > is unacceptable because it is against the Laws [and also against the > regulations of the ACBL]. > You just don't get it, don't you ? (couldn't resist) If it is not in the Laws that one should be allowed to protect his partner from the consequences of UI, then it should be. If you are going to answer all questions concerning asking bids with a complete enumeration of all the answers that partner is able to give, then you are free to give UI. So that is simply not on. A reply "asking bid" should be sufficient, and in my book, often is. If an opponent really wants to know the answering scheme, then he is entitled to this, but I really want to know what the reason for that might be. If the opponent wants to know what one is asking, that is more common. But even then I don't see what it matters. So I would suggest that the answer to the question "what is 4NT?" ought to be "asking for top cards". > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 21:20:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HBK6L07797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:20:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gw-nl4.philips.com (gw-nl4.philips.com [212.153.190.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HBK0H07793 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:20:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from smtpscan-nl2.philips.com (localhost.philips.com [127.0.0.1]) by gw-nl4.philips.com with ESMTP id NAA21380 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:06:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from con.holzscherer@philips.com) From: con.holzscherer@philips.com Received: from smtpscan-nl2.philips.com(130.139.36.22) by gw-nl4.philips.com via mwrap (4.0a) id xma021378; Wed, 17 Apr 02 13:06:31 +0200 Received: from smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtpscan-nl2.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id NAA12606 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:08:41 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from ehv501soh.diamond.philips.com (e3soh01.diamond.philips.com [130.139.54.213]) by smtprelay-nl1.philips.com (8.9.3/8.8.5-1.2.2m-19990317) with ESMTP id NAA17361 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:08:40 +0200 (MET DST) Sensitivity: Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.5 September 22, 2000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:05:22 +0200 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on ehv501soh/H/SERVER/PHILIPS(Release 5.0.9a |January 7, 2002) at 17/04/2002 13:09:37 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Henk Uijterwaal wrote: HU> The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from HU> a 3 or 4 card suit, the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. I disagree strongly. No real bridger [in the Netherlands or elsewhere] will expect that someone who plays "1st/3rd/5th" will lead the 2 from AKQJ2 or from KJ1032 or similar. In my opinion, the definition "1st/3rd/5th" does mean that from 'equivalent' cards, one will lead the odd one; thus, one does not lead the 3 from XXX32 or the King from AKYYY. The same holds for 4 card suits. Playing "1st/3rd/5th" one leads the K or the 3 from KQ32 (depending on the circumstances). Con Holzscherer -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 21:54:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HBrx507820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:53:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HBrrH07816 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:53:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3HBgWu20047; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:42:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3HBgWY14766; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:42:32 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:42:31 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: con.holzscherer@philips.com cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 con.holzscherer@philips.com wrote: > > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > > HU> The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from > HU> a 3 or 4 card suit, the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. > > I disagree strongly. > > No real bridger [in the Netherlands or elsewhere] will expect > that someone who plays "1st/3rd/5th" will lead the 2 from AKQJ2 > or from KJ1032 or similar. Of course not, the statement is about small cards. Leading the 2 from AKQJ2 is either stupid or briljant, depending on the result. KJTxx is often covered by 2 agreements: "top of a(n internal) sequence of honnors" and "3rd/5th from length". Some players will lead the J and others the 10. Declarer should ask. > In my opinion, the definition "1st/3rd/5th" does mean that from > 'equivalent' cards, one will lead the odd one; thus, one does not > lead the 3 from XXX32 or the King from AKYYY. However, holding XX432, most players will lead the 2, not the 4. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 22:13:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HCDRB07906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:13:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HCDLH07902 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:13:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA11324; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:59:27 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA08898; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:02:01 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020417135942.00a67070@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:07:36 +0200 To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , David Stevenson From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] What's a 9 (was : Miss Leading?) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:25 17/04/2002 +0200, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from a 3 or 4 card suit, >the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. > >IMHO, If a pair routinely leads either the 9 or 2 from the holding above >[K10932] >and calls it "3rd/5th", they are trying to hide their true agreements. AG : or perhaps they don't undestand what 3rd/5th means. If I really believed they honestly thought that the 9 might be led from such a suit when playing 3rd/5th, I might give them the benefit of doubt (they might be fresh converts from 4th best and not have mastered the lead style). Also, 3rd/5th leads are spot-card leads. I do play either the 2 or 9 from this holding, according to my perception of what the other hands might be, and mention 3rd/5th, and I circle both the 9-lead and the lowest-card lead from K109xx and Q109xx (and KJ9xx, by the way). If asked, I'd tell them the 9-lead is probably partner's 3rd card from an interior sequence or TON. In fact, the 9 isn't really a spot card, and agreements that apply to spot cards might apply differently, or not at all, to the 9-spot. The WBF convention card takes this into account in asking for specific meanings for the 9-lead. Best regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 22:35:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HCZRs07967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:35:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HCZIH07963 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:35:18 +1000 (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 16xoTd-0000cr-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:24:00 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:28:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts References: <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1vkD7PCT8Ev8Ew1a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@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" >> Ted Ying writes >> > >> >. And this does not constitute a psyhce since the ACBL >> > designates that 3+ card suits are natural. >> If it shows 4+ cards then it is a psyche when you do it >> on three cards. >+=+ (1) It might be thought a deviation rather than a psyche. No, I do not think so. I believe that when a bid shows by inference that it is the longest suit in the hand to do it on a suit that cannot be the longest suit is a psyche because it is a gross deviation. > (2) It is not the ACBL but the Law Book that says a bid > on a three card suit is not conventional. While true, whether it is conventional or not does not affect whether it is a psyche or not. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 17 23:22:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HDLrT08053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:21:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HDLlH08049 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:21:48 +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 g3HDAPc09090; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:10:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:02:43 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/17/02, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: >The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from a 3 or 4 card >suit, the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. Actually, as I understand it, the original (and correct) meaning is "3rd from even, lowest from odd", though I also hear that some people, having heard the shorthand "3rd and 5th", think one is supposed to lead fifth from any five or more. So the correct explanation depends on which convention you're actually playing. >IMHO, If a pair routinely leads either the 9 or 2 from the holding >above and calls it "3rd/5th", they are trying to hide their true >agreements. Here we go with that "hiding" crap again. Director! Did you ever consider the possibility they just don't know what the hell they're doing? In the games in which I play that's the most likely scenario. 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 17 23:22:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HDM3E08059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:22:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HDLuH08055 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:21:57 +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 g3HDAac09326; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:10:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:41:06 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: David Stevenson , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/17/02, David Stevenson wrote: > You just don't get it, do you? You are required to tell opponents >what conventions you are playing, and hiding behind some theory of not >giving UI is illegal and probably unethical. I've posted before about this crap. Nobody is "hiding behind" anything. We are *trying* to understand the rules of this game. If you keep it up, I'm gonna call the director and have him read Law 74A2 to you. > To avoid giving the meaning by not saying whether it is Ogust or not >is unacceptable because it is against the Laws [and also against the >regulations of the ACBL]. The regulations of the ACBL require one to explain the meaning of one's calls, and specifically state that "explanation" by naming a convention is inadequate. They are, however, silent on the matter of including the name as *part* of an explanation. I would suggest, however, that the name is superfluous if the meaning is adequately explained. This is wrong: "Alert!" "Explain please." "Ogust." This is correct: "Alert!" "Explain please." "Forcing, asking about my strength, both overall and in trumps." Now, if somebody asked me, after that second explanation, "Is that Ogust?" I'd say "yes". But if nobody asks, I see no requirement to name the convention. We've been beating this horse for some time, and we don't seem to be getting it to move. Maybe we ought to just quit, leaving folks to muddle through as best they can, without a definitive answer, since we don't seem to be able to agree on one. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 17 23:22:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HDMiC08077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:22:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout6-0.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 g3HDMcH08073 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:22:39 +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 g3HDAhc09472; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 09:10:43 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:54:34 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] How high can one appeal? [was Insufficient bid - direct question] To: "Kooijman, A." , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/17/02, Kooijman, A. wrote: >And yes this is my PERSONAL LC member opinion (saves a remark from Grattan) This raises a question that perhaps might be considered by the WBF LC. The WBF asserts that it is the final arbiter of the meaning of the laws, as well it should. Yet there is in the laws no procedure for an appeal beyond the National Authority. It seems to me that there ought to be a formal way to carry a case beyond that level. 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 17 23:25:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HDPUg08098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:25:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HDPOH08094 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:25:25 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3HDE5U22037 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:14:05 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:14 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts 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: > >+=+ (1) It might be thought a deviation rather than a psyche. > > No, I do not think so. I believe that when a bid shows by inference > that it is the longest suit in the hand to do it on a suit that cannot > be the longest suit is a psyche because it is a gross deviation. As always the actual hand/circumstances may affect one's decision and hard and fast rules are difficult to apply. Holding KJx,-,xxxxx,xxxxx I might judge to reply 1S in response to partner's 1H opening (whether or not there is an intervening double). I know partner generally expects 4S and better values but I think 1S actually gives a good practical shot at improving the contract (nothing wrong with playing in a 33 fit once in a while). As with all judgement issues YVMV. 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 Apr 17 23:43:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HDgnP08127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:42:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HDghH08123 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:42:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3HDVPH04921 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:31:25 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 17 15:27:29 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGOBAN0THG001OAT@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:30:22 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFHN8R>; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:30:01 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:30:14 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: [BLML] RE: How high can one appeal? [was Insufficient bid - direct quest ion] To: "'Ed Reppert'" , "Kooijman, A." , Bridge Laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > On 4/17/02, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >And yes this is my PERSONAL LC member opinion (saves a remark from > Grattan) > > This raises a question that perhaps might be considered by the WBF LC. > The WBF asserts that it is the final arbiter of the meaning > of the laws, > as well it should. Yet there is in the laws no procedure for an appeal > beyond the National Authority. It seems to me that there ought to be a > formal way to carry a case beyond that level. > > Regards, > > Ed Send a letter. We have to make a distinction here. There should be a decision on which the result of an event is based. And that is something not going beyond the level of the national authority or even less far. We advise sponsoring organizations to mention in their regulations that results are final after the appeal time (a half our or something similar)is over. But to get a final answer on the meaning of the laws the wbflc is the right place to go. 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 Apr 17 23:51:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HDowB08143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:50:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HDolH08139 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3HDdUr11552 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:39:30 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:39 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] How high can one appeal? [was Insufficient bid - direct que 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: Ed wrote: > This raises a question that perhaps might be considered by the WBF LC. > The WBF asserts that it is the final arbiter of the meaning of the laws, > as well it should. Yet there is in the laws no procedure for an appeal > beyond the National Authority. It seems to me that there ought to be a > formal way to carry a case beyond that level. Not at present. The WBF has neither the desire, nor (apparently) the means, to enforce decisions on a national authority - regardless of their opinions on the legality of such actions. The WBF LC could indeed decide that "the law says X" but the NA wouldn't need to change its ruling (although they could choose to). The WBF has decided to be the servant of it's members rather than a regulating body - it has decided it has no responsibility whatsoever to individual players whose national authorities decide not to enforce the laws it defines. Nothing you or I say is going to change this one Ed:( 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 Apr 18 00:25:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HEOfe08184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:24:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HEOZH08180 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:24:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA12423; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:12:03 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA10490; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:13:16 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020417161845.00a72070@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:18:50 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:58:35 +0200 >To: "Ben Schelen" >From: Alain Gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? > >At 19:03 16/04/2002 +0200, you wrote: >>The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. >>The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. >>As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. >> >>The directors cannot come to an agreement: >>Is it allowed to deviate? > >AG : first, you should look at honor leads, because there might be >something special about this 9-lead (eg Journalist lead, or lowest honor >from broken sequences). In some cases, the 9 is arguably a high card, not >a spot card. >Second, the lead is the 3rd card from the suit. This is one of the cases >where the description (1rd, 3rd, 5th) doesn't fit the convention (which is >"3rd from 3-4 cards, 5th from more"). Even so, many routinely play the 6 >from 87654, to be followed by the 7, to avoid encouraging in the suit, and >it is indeed the 3rd card. So, you could puzzle the player when telling >him this 3rd card lead is not the classical one when playing 3rd-5th. >Third, there could be cases when the 9-lead is better, even when not systemic. >Say the bidding goes : > 1C 1S X XX > 1NT p 2S p > 3H p 4H > >the XX meaning a top honor. Now, assuming you decide to lead spades, it's >obviously best to lead the 9, to be able to pin the jack from any hand if >partner holds Qx(x). >Fourth, one is indeed allowed to deviate, either bacause the lead seems >best in *this* case, or for concealing purposes. Subject to L75B proviso, >which means that it might be necessary to add a mention about such >deviations in the "special leads" box. > >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 Apr 18 00:31:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HEVPt08196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:31:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HEVJH08192 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:31:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id QAA14035; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:18:48 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id QAA17219; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:20:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020417162034.00a7aa80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:25:34 +0200 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts 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 14:14 17/04/2002 +0100, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > > > >+=+ (1) It might be thought a deviation rather than a psyche. > > > > No, I do not think so. I believe that when a bid shows by inference > > that it is the longest suit in the hand to do it on a suit that cannot > > be the longest suit is a psyche because it is a gross deviation. > >As always the actual hand/circumstances may affect one's decision and hard >and fast rules are difficult to apply. Holding KJx,-,xxxxx,xxxxx I might >judge to reply 1S in response to partner's 1H opening (whether or not >there is an intervening double). I know partner generally expects 4S and >better values but I think 1S actually gives a good practical shot at >improving the contract (nothing wrong with playing in a 33 fit once in a >while). As with all judgement issues YVMV. AG : Michel Gleis, a well-known player in the Brussels area and a master theorician of bidding, is known to us as "Confucius", for his ability to thrust subtle maxims at you with great naturalness. This Confucius once said "when both players are willing to play in a 4-3 fit, it ends in a 3-3 fit, which doesn't always mean they're 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 Thu Apr 18 01:51:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HFoXO08262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 01:50:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HFoSH08258 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 01:50:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28513; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:39:28 -0700 Message-Id: <200204171539.IAA28513@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:43:00 BST." Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 08:39:28 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > The examples: > > Law 40E says "such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, > only method" - these words are, IMO, absolutely fundamental to the whole > game. The ACBL has resorted to using 40D to restrict the style and > judgement of any player playing a natural 10-12 NT. (Ie they may not > upgrade even the world's best 9 count unless thery forego all > conventions). There are larger issues involved that I'm not yet ready to respond to, but I think you're technically wrong about this one. On reading the text of Law 40E, I believe that the parenthetical phrase "such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement" applies *specifically* to the previous phrase, which gives SO's the right to require that both members of a partnership play the same system. Since this paragraph is actually about convention cards, I don't think there's any legitimate reading of the Laws that allows you to turn this parenthetical phrase into a general principle that applies to all of Law 40. -- 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 Apr 18 03:19:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HHIdJ08344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:18:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HHIXH08340 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 03:18:33 +1000 (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 g3HH7F107757 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004801c1e632$47552440$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 10:04:35 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 regulations of the ACBL require one to explain the meaning of one's > calls, and specifically state that "explanation" by naming a convention > is inadequate. They are, however, silent on the matter of including the > name as *part* of an explanation. I would suggest, however, that the > name is superfluous if the meaning is adequately explained. > > This is wrong: > > "Alert!" > "Explain please." > "Ogust." > > This is correct: > > "Alert!" > "Explain please." > "Forcing, asking about my strength, both overall and in trumps." This is not correct, as it reminds opener that the partnership is no longer playing "feature" rebids. A good reason to make 2NT non-Alertable, as in ACBL-land. Let them look at the CC if they want to know in advance the meaning of opener's rebids after a 2NT response. This is correct: "Alert" "Explain please." "Artificial, forcing, no implied strength" (assuming that is the partnership agreement) > I fail to see why questioners cannot wait until the next bid to find out what an answer to a forcing artificial inquiry means. At that time they can even ask about calls available but not made. Despite the complexity of ACBL CC, Alert, and disclosure regulations, they constitute a pretty good overall system, at least for those capable of learning them. I do wish the ACBL would require, not merely encourage, the declarer (and/or dummy) to disclose special partnership agreements pertinent to the auction, including related inferences, that remain undisclosed at opening-lead time. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 04:06:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HI5wC08375 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:05:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HI5qH08371 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:05:52 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3HHsXH21376 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:54:33 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:54 +0100 (BST) 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: <200204171539.IAA28513@mailhub.irvine.com> > > > Law 40E says "such a regulation must not restrict style and > > judgement, only method" - these words are, IMO, absolutely > > fundamental to the whole game. The ACBL has resorted to using 40D to > > restrict the style and judgement of any player playing a natural > > 10-12 NT. (Ie they may not upgrade even the world's best 9 count > > unless thery forego all conventions). > > There are larger issues involved that I'm not yet ready to respond to, > but I think you're technically wrong about this one. On reading the > text of Law 40E, I believe that the parenthetical phrase "such a > regulation must not restrict style and judgement" applies > *specifically* to the previous phrase, which gives SO's the right to > require that both members of a partnership play the same system. I was obviously unclear. I believe that when the laws were developed the lawmakers wanted to enshrine things like psyching, player judgement, light openings as a core part of the game - and made a not unreasonable job of it. My first two examples were intended to show where this "spirit" of the laws had been twisted (and that the twisting had been condoned by the current WBF). I may be wrong about the original intent of the lawmakers. 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 Apr 18 04:14:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HIEXS08391 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:14:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HIERH08387 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:14:27 +1000 (EST) Received: (from ted@localhost) by milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3HI34513993 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:03:04 -0400 From: Ted Ying Message-Id: <200204171803.g3HI34513993@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws Mailing List) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:03:04 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Apr 17, 2002 11:28:57 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: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:28:57 +0100 > From: David Stevenson > > Grattan Endicott writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> Ted Ying writes > >> > > >> >. And this does not constitute a psyhce since the ACBL > >> > designates that 3+ card suits are natural. > > >> If it shows 4+ cards then it is a psyche when you do it > >> on three cards. > > >+=+ (1) It might be thought a deviation rather than a psyche. > > No, I do not think so. I believe that when a bid shows by inference > that it is the longest suit in the hand to do it on a suit that cannot > be the longest suit is a psyche because it is a gross deviation. > How can a 3-card suit show directly or by inference that it is the longest suit in the hand? There must be at least one 4 card suit and hence, it cannot be. If you hold AQx/xx/QTx/xxxxx and you respond 1S to partner's 1D, that is allowed. Even if partner expects you to have 4 spades, why is this a gross deviation? You are choosing between the lesser of evils. You don't want to bid to the 2 level with your mere 8 HCP's, you don't want to bid NT with no heart stopper, so you choose what you feel is the lesser of evils. I don't think this is a gross deviation and I don't think it is convenitional. And I hardly think this constitutes a psyche. In an uncontested auction, would you have a problem with this? > > (2) It is not the ACBL but the Law Book that says a bid > > on a three card suit is not conventional. > > While true, whether it is conventional or not does not affect whether > it is a psyche or not. > Going back to the original question, if you bid a lead-directing 1S on the hand given above when the auction came 1D-X-? to you, would that be a psyche? And why? You are trying to give positive information to your partner for an appropriate lead. That to me is tactical and not a psyche. It is helping partner to locate your values and I do not believe this to be a gross deviation on the evaluation of the hand. Why is 5432 not a gross deviation, but AQ8 is? -Ted. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 05:20:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HJJOZ08424 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:19:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HJJJH08420 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 05:19:19 +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 g3HJ7xc26227 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:07:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:54:16 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <004801c1e632$47552440$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/17/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" >> This is correct: >> >> "Alert!" >> "Explain please." >> "Forcing, asking about my strength, both overall and in trumps." > >This is not correct, as it reminds opener that the partnership is no >longer playing "feature" rebids. A good reason to make 2NT >non-Alertable, as in ACBL-land. Let them look at the CC if they want to >know in advance the meaning of opener's rebids after a 2NT response. > >This is correct: > >"Alert" >"Explain please." >"Artificial, forcing, no implied strength" (assuming that is the >partnership agreement) Hm. I might agree with you here, with the caveat that the fact that the answer to a question transmits UI does not make that answer wrong. :-) I would have thought that a 2NT inquiry over a weak 2 bid implies enough strength to at least play at the 3 level, and in game (or higher) if the opener gives the response for which the asker is looking. >I fail to see why questioners cannot wait until the next bid to find >out what an answer to a forcing artificial inquiry means. At that time >they can even ask about calls available but not made. I hope others here respond to this, particularly those who seem to be in the "if an opponent raises an eyebrow, that should trigger a dump of everything you know about this convention, including all potential followups" camp. >Despite the complexity of ACBL CC, Alert, and disclosure regulations, >they constitute a pretty good overall system, at least for those >capable of learning them. I do wish the ACBL would require, not merely >encourage, the declarer (and/or dummy) to disclose special partnership >agreements pertinent to the auction, including related inferences, >that remain undisclosed at opening-lead time. It might help if teachers taught them, instead of relegating them to "you don't need to worry about that right now." It might also help if teachers, TDs, and players actively tried to combat the "if somebody calls the director, it's an accusation" attitude. Not to mention the "I don't read convention cards, I ask questions" attitude. What about undisclosed agreements by the defenders? Surely the declarer might like to know about them, just as the defenders might like to know about the declaring side's. 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 18 07:06:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HL5cB08468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:05:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HL5XH08464 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:05:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16xwRU-0000fY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:54:16 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020417163519.00a94660@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 16:54:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts 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 10:38 AM 4/16/02, twm wrote: > > A psych (which is perforce not subject to disclosure in the ACBL) is a > > gross distortion of the systemic meaning of your call, and has nothing > > whatsoever to do with how many cards you hold in the suit you bid. > >Psyching habits can create implicit partnership understandings which are >disclosable everywhere aren't they? (Although not alertable >necessarily). > Obviously a disclosable understanding is different to a regulatable >agreement. The ACBL has outlawed *any* agreement, whether explicit or implicit, with regard to psychs. So in every other jurisdiction, psyching habits, when they become known to partner, become disclosable, but in the ACBL they become *illegal*. Since you can no longer emply them, there is "perforce" no disclosure issue. > > [*] Or so one would think, given the definition of "convention", > but in > > reality I very much doubt it. I strongly suspect that if one asked > the > > ACBL for an official ruling, they would tell you that such an > agreement > > was not allowed on some grounds or other (perhaps as an "agreement to > > psych", 3+-card suit requirement notwithstanding). They would surely > > disallow an agreement to bid 1S as either a normal overcall or a > > three-card suit *with heart support* (the "baby psych", as it's been > > called here) -- that would be clearly conventional. But this is all > > beside the point. > >Don't be too hard on them. If you look on the GCC "allowed" section under >the competitive section you will find: > >6. DEFENSE TO: >a) conventional calls > >Thus you are allowed any conventional defence once opponents start making >conventional calls. This feels very fair on "they started it" grounds:) >The takeout double is probably the world's most useful and widespread >convention. I strongly suspect that the ACBL would not allow you to "hide" behind this allowance, but would call such a defense an "agreement with regard to psychs, in disguise", or perhaps a "psychic control". After all, is there really any difference between: 1H-X-1S "Alert." "Please explain." "Usually a normal 1S overcall, but he may be psyching with short spades and a bad hand." and 1H-X-1S "Alert." "Please explain." "An artificial two-way bid showing either a normal 1S overcall or short spades and a bad hand, although she's allowed to pass with the latter if she chooses." ? There is no doubt whatsoever that the ACBL has said that the former is illegal, and I can't imagine that anyone could come up with any sensible justification that would ban the former but allow the (effectively identical) latter. I somehow just don't think, "That's not an agreement to psych; it's a conventional defense to takeout doubles," would do it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 07:13:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HLDHl08485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:13:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HLDBH08481 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:13:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.78.43]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 (built Feb 21 2002)) with SMTP id <0GUQ00LCTD2XXO@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:01:47 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:03:22 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Ed Reppert Cc: Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <003301c1e65b$b1ce8a40$2b4e003e@mycomputer> 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 !!! [hope this doesn't offend] Israel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? > On 4/17/02, Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) wrote: > > >The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from a 3 or 4 card > >suit, the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. > > Actually, as I understand it, the original (and correct) meaning is "3rd > from even, lowest from odd", though I also hear that some people, having > heard the shorthand "3rd and 5th", think one is supposed to lead fifth > from any five or more. So the correct explanation depends on which > convention you're actually playing. > > >IMHO, If a pair routinely leads either the 9 or 2 from the holding > >above and calls it "3rd/5th", they are trying to hide their true > >agreements. > > Here we go with that "hiding" crap again. Director! > > Did you ever consider the possibility they just don't know what the hell > they're doing? In the games in which I play that's the most likely > scenario. > > 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE > 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 Thu Apr 18 07:34:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HLXo408501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:33:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HLXjH08497 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:33:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16xwsl-0005iB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:22:27 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020417170646.00b13b40@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:22:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: [BLML] Rottweiler Coup (WAS Insufficient bid - direct question) In-Reply-To: References: <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <20020330125857-R01050000-E56D7E7F-43DD-11D6-8A75-26A0F98D491A-0904-0108@192.168.1.2> <00e901c1d819$058886a0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000a01c1d8ce$3037a420$bb4e003e@erdnbaum> <00b501c1e32d$37c6e660$8249e150@dodona> <2F4swtCHiLu8EwPi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c1e3c7$7a5b85e0$5055e150@dodona> <00f201c1e3da$907be960$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002701c1e4cc$2f72d280$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 04:01 PM 4/16/02, John wrote: >I'm minded of the long discussion we had here re: "the Rottweiller Coup" >where the only way to go is via 72B1. Did we decide that? That's not my recollection. Although we did reach a consensus that the Rottweiler Coup was illegal, I don't recall being alone in the opinion that L72B1, which is about damage from an infraction, could not be applied directly (as there was no suggestion that the Rottweiler might have known that he was committing an infraction at the time), but only "through" the cross-reference in L23, which is specifically about damage from an enforced pass. Didn't someone point out that if L72B1 always applied to any irregularity penalized by partner's enforced pass the second paragraph of L23 would be meaningless except for the parenthetical cross-reference? >Potted summary of the Rottweiller Coup follows: He multied a 6025 >1-count out of turn, then silenced his partner by psyching his void. >When they reached slam in diamonds (screaming a singleton club in the >auction) he lead a suit preference club and got his heart ruff. The >howls of rage could be heard even in Svenland. TD ruled result stands, >AC overturned it and we had a 100+ post thread discussing it. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 07:59:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HLxBA08537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:59:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HLx6H08533 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 07:59:06 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3HLlmn05699 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:47:48 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 22:47 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020417163519.00a94660@pop.starpower.net> > At 10:38 AM 4/16/02, twm wrote: > > > > A psych (which is perforce not subject to disclosure in the ACBL) > > > is a > > > gross distortion of the systemic meaning of your call, and has > > > nothing > > > whatsoever to do with how many cards you hold in the suit you bid. > > > >Psyching habits can create implicit partnership understandings which > >are disclosable everywhere aren't they? (Although not alertable > >necessarily). > >Obviously a disclosable understanding is different to a regulatable > >agreement. > > The ACBL has outlawed *any* agreement, whether explicit or implicit, > with regard to psychs. So in every other jurisdiction, psyching > habits, when they become known to partner, become disclosable, but in > the ACBL they become *illegal*. Since you can no longer emply them, > there is "perforce" no disclosure issue. You cannot simultaneously have an explicit agreement not to psyche (as this would seem to require) and an implicit understanding about specific psyches. Indeed an agreement not to psyche in a particular position is an agreement about psyches and so would, under this rule, be illegal. Sounds to me like the ACBL is talking nonsense. I will worry about this one in the unlikely event that I ever play with a regular partner in the ACBL. > > > [*] Or so one would think, given the definition of "convention", > > but in > > > reality I very much doubt it. I strongly suspect that if one asked > > the > > > ACBL for an official ruling, they would tell you that such an > > agreement > > > was not allowed on some grounds or other (perhaps as an "agreement > > > to > > > psych", 3+-card suit requirement notwithstanding). They would > > > surely > > > disallow an agreement to bid 1S as either a normal overcall or a > > > three-card suit *with heart support* (the "baby psych", as it's been > > > called here) -- that would be clearly conventional. But this is all > > > beside the point. > > > >Don't be too hard on them. If you look on the GCC "allowed" section > under > >the competitive section you will find: > > > >6. DEFENSE TO: > >a) conventional calls > > > >Thus you are allowed any conventional defence once opponents start > >making conventional calls. This feels very fair on "they started it" > >grounds:) The takeout double is probably the world's most useful and > >widespreadconvention. > > I strongly suspect that the ACBL would not allow you to "hide" behind > this allowance, but would call such a defense an "agreement with regard > to psychs, in disguise", or perhaps a "psychic control". After all, is > there really any difference between: > > 1H-X-1S "Alert." "Please explain." "Usually a normal 1S overcall, but > he may be psyching with short spades and a bad hand." > > and > > 1H-X-1S "Alert." "Please explain." "An artificial two-way bid showing > either a normal 1S overcall or short spades and a bad hand, although > she's allowed to pass with the latter if she chooses." ? In both cases the bad hand would have heart support (and might be good). The difference in the latter case is that you could use an asking bid thereafter to discover which holding partner had. > There is no doubt whatsoever that the ACBL has said that the former is > illegal, and I can't imagine that anyone could come up with any IMO the ACBL is wrong, and is merely attempting to drive psyching out of the game with a regulation that directly contravenes the spirit. Although obviously they could ban blacks, jews and weak NTs without the WBF doing anything - it's lucky your government offers a degree of protection on some things. > sensible justification that would ban the former but allow the > (effectively identical) latter. I somehow just don't think, "That's > not an agreement to psych; it's a conventional defense to takeout > doubles," would do it. While the ACBL might wish otherwise I don't think the GCC leaves them much room to justify it - not that that will stop them of course (they might even bother to amend the GCC instead of just saying "you can'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 Thu Apr 18 08:05:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HM5fe08554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:05:41 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HM5ZH08549 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:05:35 +1000 (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 g3HLsI119603 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:54:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <008201c1e65a$60b36820$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:53:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > I would have thought that a 2NT inquiry over a weak 2 bid implies enough > strength to at least play at the 3 level, and in game (or higher) if the > opener gives the response for which the asker is looking. And you would have thought that a 4NT inquiry implies enough strength to play at the 5 level, and in a small slam (or higher) if the response is one for which the asker is looking. But then you found out about Bluff Blackwood, merely a preliminary for a 5-level contract, not Alertable. Asking bids such as Blackwood, 2NT over a weak two, Stayman, etc., are much more valuable if they promise nothing. Novices are taught by naive teachers that Blackwood shows slam interest, 2NT over a weak two shows game interest, Stayman shows one or more four-card majors, and so on, but all that is silly. Asking bids should be treated only as requests for information, that's it, promising nothing. Those who promise something with an asking bid should be Alerting and explaining that. > > >I fail to see why questioners cannot wait until the next bid to find > >out what an answer to a forcing artificial inquiry means. At that time > >they can even ask about calls available but not made. > > I hope others here respond to this, particularly those who seem to be in > the "if an opponent raises an eyebrow, that should trigger a dump of > everything you know about this convention, including all potential > followups" camp. They are mostly correct, but the dump has to be incrementally requested at proper times if it comes during the auction. > > What about undisclosed agreements by the defenders? Surely the declarer > might like to know about them, just as the defenders might like to know > about the declaring side's. > That isn't really a problem because declarer can easily ask about the opposing auction, even questioning individual calls (L20F2). Since the defenders' questioning rights are more limited, and moreover risk the charge of damaging UI, the ACBL wants declarer and/or dummy to do a core dump voluntarily so that (it is hoped) questions won't be necessary. I maintain that this should be required by regulation (or law). Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 08:13:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HMCqD08570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:12:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HMClH08566 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:12:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16xxUX-0004Td-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:01:30 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020417174101.00a8af00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:01:19 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@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 05:39 PM 4/16/02, Marvin wrote: >Both are technically improper, as I see it. Actually "Forcing" is >probably all that is required by the ACBL, going by the CC, which has a >black box labeled "2NT Force" and space for explaining opener's rebid, >but not responder's 2NT response. I can neither stomach nor believe that Marv, the ACBL, or anyone else seriously thinks that "forcing" is an adequate description of an artificial asking bid with artificial responses. The meaning of any bid can be disclosed with one of three "explanation templates": "That shows..." "That asks about..." "That shows... and asks about..." I think that any explanation which does not reveal which of the three possibilities above is the correct one cannot be considered proper disclosure. As Marv repeatedly points out, if you want to know the opponents' scale of artificial responses to an asking bid you can always look at their convention card (although as David S. repeatedly points out, you are not required to do so, and cannot be denied full disclosure because you do not choose to). But why should an opponent look for your scale of artificial responses on your convention card when you've given him no particular reason to think that there is any scale of artificial responses, because to 99.9% of bridge players, "forcing" is shorthand for "natural and forcing", and implies that the responses will be natural as well? Sorry, Marv, I don't think you'll be able to wiggle out of an MI infraction when you've "explained" an artificial asking bid without bothering to include anything to suggest that it's an artificial asking bid, no matter what's on your CC. >The ACBL's disclosure requirements, which I try to follow to the letter, >seem both legal and adequate. Not if they really allow "forcing" as an acceptable description of an Ogust asking bid. IMO, they do not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 08:38:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HMcYD08584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:38:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HMcTH08580 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:38:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09088; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:27:27 -0700 Message-Id: <200204172227.PAA09088@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 17 Apr 2002 18:01:19 EDT." <4.3.2.7.0.20020417174101.00a8af00@pop.starpower.net> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:27:27 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > At 05:39 PM 4/16/02, Marvin wrote: > > >Both are technically improper, as I see it. Actually "Forcing" is > >probably all that is required by the ACBL, going by the CC, which has a > >black box labeled "2NT Force" and space for explaining opener's rebid, > >but not responder's 2NT response. > > I can neither stomach nor believe that Marv, the ACBL, or anyone else > seriously thinks that "forcing" is an adequate description of an > artificial asking bid with artificial responses. > > The meaning of any bid can be disclosed with one of three "explanation > templates": > > "That shows..." > "That asks about..." > "That shows... and asks about..." > > I think that any explanation which does not reveal which of the three > possibilities above is the correct one cannot be considered proper > disclosure. This is another thread I haven't been following closely. However, from the limited portion that I've read, I get the impression that Marvin thinks that, as an opponent, you have only the right to know that an asker's artifical bid is forcing, and then you have the right to find out on the next round what the answerer's answer means. That's clearly not enough. You must certainly have the right to know what the asker was asking about; you certainly have a right to know that the asker has the type of hand that would think asking particular question is the best course of action, and draw the appropriate inferences about his hand. The asker's partner has that knowledge and can draw those inferences, so why shouldn't the opponents have access to it? My apologies if I've misunderstood what the argument is about. -- 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 Apr 18 08:53:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HMqmS08604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:52:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3HMqgH08600 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:52:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09184; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:41:40 -0700 Message-Id: <200204172241.PAA09184@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 16 Apr 2002 15:25:48 PDT." <200204162225.PAA21211@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 15:41:41 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This post is from David Davies . He accidentally sent it to me and then asked me to repost it to the list. -- Adam *************************************************************************** --- Adam Beneschan wrote: > > But I'm going to go further, and imagine a > hypothetical case > where a ZO decides that revokes are getting to be a > serious problem in > their part of the world, and that they henceforth > are going to > penalize all revokes three tricks (unless a larger > penalty is called > for by L64C). This unquestionably goes against the > Laws. My question > is, "So what?" This depends on how far you are willing to go. I must confess that I would be quite comfortable with an SO making such a rule; it would not affect the nature of the game in any significant way. What I am uncomfortable about is SO's making rules that do change the nature of the game. At what point does it cease to be bridge? Rules banning HUM's, for instance, significantly change an aspect of the way the game is played (at least for those players who would play HUM's if they were allowed). Whether or not you regard the outcome as bridge it would affect the game far more than increasing the penalties for revokes. Similarly for rules concerning psyches. > > Yeah, I know, everyone is shocked that I would even > ask such a > question. I'm playing devil's advocate here, to > some extent. I'm not > necessarily saying it wouldn't be a bad thing; but I > think the > question of why it would be a bad thing needs to be > addressed, > discussed, and debated. A scenario I've been playing at Uptown BC for the past 15 years but recently I've decided to take the plunge and have a game at Downtown BC. I've heard that they play to slightly different rules, but I figure that since it is called a bridge club and is ultimately linked with the WBF, I decide that things can't be that different. On the first table I open 1N showing 10-12 balanced. We get a good score, but the director takes it away from us because due to club rules 1N openings promise 15-17 points. We are instructed to change our system to conform for the rest of the session. We do not enjoy our evening and resolve never to go there again. The net result of this sort of scenario would be that there is less interaction between bridge clubs and more insularity. From the point of view of competitive players inter-club/regional/national competitions would become more difficult as sorting out what systems people would be allowed to play would cause feuds and possible bad-feeling. From the point of view of social players there would probably be less opportunity to meet new people as people would tend to stick to a single club rather than go to multiple clubs which is what many do now. I regard myself as a bridge player, albeit not a very competent one. However, I have no practical experience of playing Standard American, so if I went to a club where they insisted that I play this system, it would seriously compromise my enjoyment; in what way is this good for the game of bridge? On the other hand, if I revoke and the director takes 3 tricks instead of 1 or 2, I am far less likely to be upset by this because it doesn't really affect the game. > > Personally, I do not see how this single deviation > by a ZO would do > any harm to anyone, or to the game of bridge. Agreed. > I > don't see any obvious > reason *why* there needs to be a uniform set of Laws > for every region, > or why having a uniform set is even beneficial. My > concern is that I > think a lot of us have been taking it as axiomatic, > a principle that > is taken for granted and shouldn't even be > questioned, that the WBF > laws are the final word and should be the final word > for all the other > organizations. But I'm now asking that this axiom > be defended. With regard to it being axiomatic, I would suspect that if the WBF did enforce a uniform set of laws they would only be falling in line with many or most other international sports/games authorities; indeed many authorities regard the formulating and enforcing of rules as one of their prime roles. I noticed that someone wrote something to do with appealing to the WBF as a last resort. What is the point of appealing to the WBF if they do not define at least some rules? If one doesn't appeal to the WBF, then who does one appeal to? Let's say for the sake of argument that we regard it as a good thing that the WBF does not enforce it's version of the laws and it leaves it to national authorities to sort their own laws out. Do we not have exactly the same issues that come up in your thesis, just on a smaller scale? If the WBF is the wrong body to enforce laws, why is a national association the right body? Why not regional associations? Clubs? > I > believe that having a real discussion of this point > will help shed > light on some principles that would help us in our > discussions of > other issues, such as the ones involving regulation > of psychs, > conventions, and natural bids. > Another issue: Membership of the IOC would be very important for some national bridge associations because in some countries the only way to get, say, government funding is if it is a member of a national organization that is a member of the IOC. Bridge is not healthy in all parts of the world. If the IOC does not mind the current state of affairs, then fine, but if not the WBF should remember its smaller members. > ******************** > > Some other comments on some specific points: > > Tim, responding to 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. > > Unfortunately, Tim didn't give specifics here, so I > don't know what > evidence he's talking about. I'm not even sure what > would constitute > "evidence that they can't be trusted". > > Perhaps the main problem is that I (and others, like > David) assume > that the main purpose of bridge is a game where the > players enjoy > themselves, and that everything else, including the > Laws, should be > subordinate to that purpose; while others assume > that the Laws are the > most important thing about the game. The second > point of view makes > no sense to me. Assuming that enjoyment *is* the > most important > thing, then does Tim have evidence from > Austria/ACBL/EBU that the > players in their tournaments aren't enjoying > themselves? I kind of > doubt it. I don't agree that the laws are subordinate to a players enjoyment of the game. People do indeed go to a game of bridge to enjoy themselves, but they also go to play bridge. If people just want to enjoy themselves they go to, say, a social club. The role of a bridge club should be to try to make the bridge as enjoyable as possible. > > * * * * * * > > Wayne, responding to David, wrote: > > > > There is a reasonable reg operated by certain > authorities. It is > > > believed to be legal. It is believed to be good > in the bridge played > > > under those authorities' auspices. Why not > leave it be? > > > > > > > Because it is patently absurd to give local > regulators the power to make > > regulations that to conflict with the laws of the > game. > > Why is it absurd? "The laws of the game" are what > the WBF believes > the laws should be; if you give local regulators the > power to make > contradictory regulations, you have a scenario where > some bridge games > are run under one set of rules and some other bridge > games in other > parts of the world are run under a slightly > different set of rules. > Nobody has ever explained to me why this scenario is > such a bad thing > that it should be called "absurd", much less > "patently absurd". > What if some bridge games are run under one set of rules and some other bridge games in another part of the world run under significantly different sets of rules? > * * * * * * > > Eric wrote: > > > Nobody has suggested that the WBF does not have > the power to permit the > > Austrians to ban psychs. But many here have > argued that they have a > > moral obligation to amend L40 either to make the > existing loophole > > explicit or to close it; they should not > compromise their authority > > just because the most comfortable thing to do > right now is look the > > other way. > > Eric preceded this with a discussion about the ACBL > previously leaving > it up to local units whether to ban blacks. > > I do not think this analogy is relevant. There are > moral issues > involved in racial discrimination. There are, > however, no moral > issues involved in the rules of the game, or in the > rules of any game > (beyond such basics as treating people equally and > fairly, and > avoiding favoritism). Bridge does not become a more > or less moral > game if the rules are changed to allow or disallow > psychs, or allow or > disallow some conventions or some natural calls or > some systems or > whatever. It becomes a slightly different game, but > the rule change > has no moral effect whatsoever. So arguing from the > basis of "moral > obligation" is, I think, inappropriate. (I > acknowledge that Eric was > attributing this argument to others and not > necessarily making it > himself.) It seems to me, though, that when people > would prefer the > rules to be a certain way so that they can do > something they'd like to > do (psych conventional openings or play their pet > forcing pass system > or whatever), and they get denied because the > majority don't want to > play by those rules, some people try to turn it into > a moral issue. > This, to me, is an abuse of the concept of > "morality". While I agree that it is dubious to talk about morality in this case it is nevertheless the case that there are different groups of people with opposing beliefs and it is difficult to find an agreeable compromise. Therefore one of these groups will be prevented from obtaining maximum enjoyment from the game of bridge. The question is, why should it always be the minority who have their enjoyments infringed? Oh dear, I've gone on a bit, haven't I? I'll stop now. David __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 09:46:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HNjgR08646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:45:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3HNjXH08638 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:45:34 +1000 (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 16xywH-000Ne9-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:34:16 +0100 Message-ID: <4c$wHVG93Wv8Ew3l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:43:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Marvin L. French writes >> >> >>>You just don't get it, do you? My partners may well forget whether we >>>are playing "standard" responses to 2NT or Ogust, and I don't think I >>>should tell them what my next bid is going to mean. Opener's responses >>>to 2NT are shown on my CC as "Ogust" (inappropriate, but acceptable in >>>lieu of listing all the responses). These are Alertable, explained on >>>request. >>> >> >> You just don't get it, do you? You are required to tell opponents >> what conventions you are playing, and hiding behind some theory of not >> giving UI is illegal and probably unethical. >> >> To avoid giving the meaning by not saying whether it is Ogust or not >> is unacceptable because it is against the Laws [and also against the >> regulations of the ACBL]. >> > > >You just don't get it, don't you ? >(couldn't resist) >If it is not in the Laws that one should be allowed to protect his >partner from the consequences of UI, then it should be. >If you are going to answer all questions concerning asking bids with a >complete enumeration of all the answers that partner is able to give, >then you are free to give UI. > >So that is simply not on. >A reply "asking bid" should be sufficient, and in my book, often is. Full disclosure is necessary under L75A. it is also one of the building blocks of the ethical game. >If an opponent really wants to know the answering scheme, then he is >entitled to this, but I really want to know what the reason for that >might be. >If the opponent wants to know what one is asking, that is more common. >But even then I don't see what it matters. > >So I would suggest that the answer to the question "what is 4NT?" >ought to be "asking for top cards". How very helpful. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 09:46:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3HNjgU08645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:45:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3HNjXH08637 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:45:34 +1000 (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 16xywH-000NeB-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:34:15 +0100 Message-ID: <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:47:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? 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 Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Ben Schelen writes >> >The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. >> >The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. >> >As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. >> >> You have lost me. >> >> The CC says they lead 1st, 3rd and 5th, yes? >> >> He has KT952, so he leads the 3rd, as the CC says? >> >> What is the problem? > >The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from a 3 or 4 card suit, >the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. > >IMHO, If a pair routinely leads either the 9 or 2 from the holding above >and calls it "3rd/5th", they are trying to hide their true agreements. I agree with your meaning of 3rd and 5th, and the same would apply here. But this pair is not playing 3rd and 5th, which implies nothing about honour leads, but 1st, 3rd and 5th, which does. Perhaps it is a language thing. Anyway, if 1st, 3rd and 5th does not imply the 9 from KT9xx [what does it mean, the king?] then they have false carded which is legal. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 11:19:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3I1IQp08720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:18:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3I1IKH08716 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:18:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3I16xM24217; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:07:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:55:08 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020417174101.00a8af00@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/17/02, Eric Landau wrote: >As Marv repeatedly points out, if you want to know the opponents' scale >of artificial responses to an asking bid you can always look at their >convention card (although as David S. repeatedly points out, you are >not required to do so, and cannot be denied full disclosure because you >do not choose to). There is, of course, that EBU regulation that says that one is required, at the beginning of a round, to examine the opponents' CC and ascertain (IIRC) the range of their opening NT and any other information on the front of their card and "if you fail to do so, and are later damaged, it will be your fault." (NB: the front of an EBU CC is not the same as the front of an ACBL card - for one thing the EBU card has four sides, the ACBL card only two - and they're smaller than the EBU ones.) It would certainly be possible for an authority to require reading the CC, either at the beginning of a round or before asking a question. 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 18 11:19:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3I1J5a08742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:19:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3I1IuH08731 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:18:56 +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 g3I173M24306; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:07:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:48:16 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/17/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >They are mostly correct, but the dump has to be incrementally requested >at proper times if it comes during the auction. Not, as I understand it, according to (their interpretation of) that part of the acbl alert reg that says "any question should trigger full disclosure" (or words to that effect). 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 18 11:19:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3I1JBB08747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:19:11 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3I1J0H08736 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:19:01 +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 g3I175M24373; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 20:47:45 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <008201c1e65a$60b36820$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/17/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >That isn't really a problem because declarer can easily ask about the >opposing auction, even questioning individual calls (L20F2). Since the >defenders' questioning rights are more limited, and moreover risk the >charge of damaging UI, the ACBL wants declarer and/or dummy to do a >core dump voluntarily so that (it is hoped) questions won't be >necessary. I maintain that this should be required by regulation (or >law). I have to confess that when I first saw this recommendation in the new alert regs, I was a bit nonplussed -- and not sure I liked it. I may have to rethink that. :-) How are the defenders' rights more limited? 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 18 13:37:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3I3aVu08854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:36:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3I3aPH08850 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:36:26 +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 g3I3P7x03649 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:25:07 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 04:18:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >>On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: >> >>> Ben Schelen writes >>> >The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. >>> >The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. >>> >As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. >>> >>> You have lost me. >>> >>> The CC says they lead 1st, 3rd and 5th, yes? >>> >>> He has KT952, so he leads the 3rd, as the CC says? >>> >>> What is the problem? >> >>The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from a 3 or 4 card suit, >>the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. >> >>IMHO, If a pair routinely leads either the 9 or 2 from the holding above >>and calls it "3rd/5th", they are trying to hide their true agreements. > > I agree with your meaning of 3rd and 5th, and the same would apply >here. > > But this pair is not playing 3rd and 5th, which implies nothing about >honour leads, but 1st, 3rd and 5th, which does. > > Perhaps it is a language thing. > > Anyway, if 1st, 3rd and 5th does not imply the 9 from KT9xx [what does >it mean, the king?] then they have false carded which is legal. > In my book A/3/5 does not say anything about interior honour leads. My own card says: A/2/4 K/10/9. This is interpreted (in London) as: Ace from Ace King empty, 2nd from bad suits, 4th from an honour(s). K promises 3 honours, 10s and 9s are 0 or two higher. 1/3/5 merely states Ace from Ace King, 3rd from honour fourth, bottom from honour fifth. It says nothing about leads from bad suits and nothing about intermediate honour leads. It has significant lack of disclosure. I asked at the beginning of the thread for details of the lead style from interior honour sequences and still haven't been told. If the information is not available then I'm going to rule against on an MI basis. Of course I actually believe they've no idea what they're doing, but I await clarification before ruling on that basis. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 16:37:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3I6axl08968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:36:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3I6arH08964 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:36:53 +1000 (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 g3I6PY101821 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00a901c1e6a1$cd8bd120$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:23:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > On 4/17/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >That isn't really a problem because declarer can easily ask about the > >opposing auction, even questioning individual calls (L20F2). Since the > >defenders' questioning rights are more limited, and moreover risk the > >charge of damaging UI, the ACBL wants declarer and/or dummy to do a > >core dump voluntarily so that (it is hoped) questions won't be > >necessary. I maintain that this should be required by regulation (or > >law). > > I have to confess that when I first saw this recommendation in the new > alert regs, I was a bit nonplussed -- and not sure I liked it. I may > have to rethink that. :-) > > How are the defenders' rights more limited? > Read L20F2. Defenders may ask for an "explanation of the opposing auction" only, while declarer may question individual calls. 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 Apr 18 16:47:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3I6kxx08998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:46:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3I6krH08994 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:46:54 +1000 (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 g3I6ZZ104895 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:35:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 23:30:30 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 4/17/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >They are mostly correct, but the dump has to be incrementally requested > >at proper times if it comes during the auction. > > Not, as I understand it, according to (their interpretation of) that > part of the acbl alert reg that says "any question should trigger full > disclosure" (or words to that effect). > Full disclosure of the meaning of calls made to date, or calls that were available but not made, and any inferences pertaining to those calls. But, during the auction, not calls that haven't been made yet. 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 Apr 18 17:29:24 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3I7T3I09054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:29:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3I7SvH09050 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:28:58 +1000 (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 g3I7Hd114598 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e901c1e6a9$13e327c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 00:16:58 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 4/17/02, Eric Landau wrote: > > >As Marv repeatedly points out, if you want to know the opponents' scale > >of artificial responses to an asking bid you can always look at their > >convention card (although as David S. repeatedly points out, you are > >not required to do so, and cannot be denied full disclosure because you > >do not choose to). And, for Pete's sake, you can ask the meaning of a response and at that time ask for the meaning of every other response that was available (L20F1). > > There is, of course, that EBU regulation that says that one is required, > at the beginning of a round, to examine the opponents' CC and ascertain > (IIRC) the range of their opening NT and any other information on the > front of their card and "if you fail to do so, and are later damaged, it > will be your fault." (NB: the front of an EBU CC is not the same as the > front of an ACBL card - for one thing the EBU card has four sides, the > ACBL card only two - and they're smaller than the EBU ones.) > > It would certainly be possible for an authority to require reading the > CC, either at the beginning of a round or before asking a question. > The main purpose of the CC is to communicate a partnership's agreements to the opponents in a way that makes oral communication (and attendant UI) unnecessary. Many pros love to force opponents to create UI by asking unnecessary questions, hoping to catch them up. The true agreements are on the CC, not in the faulty memories of the players. I realize that pros don't like convention cards, preferring oral questioning so that clients will be well informed, but that's not cricket It happens all the time to me: I make a call in accordance with an agreement plainly shown on the CC, an opponent asks my partner about its meaning, and partner gives a poor answer. Then we get hanged for MI. There should be an ACBL regulation that says it is improper to ask a question if the answer is plainly shown on the CC, or at least that doing so is at one's own risk. Also, a player should be able to offer the CC as an answer, making sure that no one sees it except the questioner. I had one pro opponent who refused to read my CC, insisting that I (in effect) read it for him. Such oafishly bad manners should be a Zero Tolerance offense. 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 Apr 18 19:13:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3I9Cdk09163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:12:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3I9CWH09159 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:12:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-49003.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.63.107]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3I91Ah23205 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:01:11 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:02:14 +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] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> <4c$wHVG93Wv8Ew3l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, sorry, we are not in disagreement here, so please don't pick on me. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>If it is not in the Laws that one should be allowed to protect his >>partner from the consequences of UI, then it should be. >>If you are going to answer all questions concerning asking bids with a >>complete enumeration of all the answers that partner is able to give, >>then you are free to give UI. >> >>So that is simply not on. >>A reply "asking bid" should be sufficient, and in my book, often is. >> > > Full disclosure is necessary under L75A. it is also one of the > building blocks of the ethical game. > Exactly, so you always reply a full 10 minutes' worth ? No you don't. > >>If an opponent really wants to know the answering scheme, then he is >>entitled to this, but I really want to know what the reason for that >>might be. >>If the opponent wants to know what one is asking, that is more common. >>But even then I don't see what it matters. >> >>So I would suggest that the answer to the question "what is 4NT?" >>ought to be "asking for top cards". >> > > How very helpful. > Well, at the moment the question is asked, that is all that one needs. The next bidder needs to know that 4NT was not "to play" and might be passed. Anything else is at that moment very probable not needed, and if it is, the player can ask and I will tell everything and I trust the TD will not hold my partner to UI obligations. But if I reply "40-31 RKCB" to the same question, I feel I have just given partner UI. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 19:56:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3I9uKc09229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:56:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3I9uDH09225 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:56:13 +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 g3I9iux04270 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:44:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:37:21 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Ed Reppert" > >> On 4/17/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >They are mostly correct, but the dump has to be incrementally >requested >> >at proper times if it comes during the auction. >> >> Not, as I understand it, according to (their interpretation of) that >> part of the acbl alert reg that says "any question should trigger full >> disclosure" (or words to that effect). >> >Full disclosure of the meaning of calls made to date, or calls that were >available but not made, and any inferences pertaining to those calls. > >But, during the auction, not calls that haven't been made yet. > I'm not so sure of that. There are many occasions when I'd jam the auction if the opponents are playing stupid method (a); but pass if they're playing sensible method (b). I need to know and the calls haven't been made yet. It's no different from a pre-alert - is it? cheers john >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 20:18:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IAHhw09287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:17:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IAHbH09283 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:17:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0707.bb.online.no [80.212.210.195]) by mail47.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA10281 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:06:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <006801c1e6c0$abc7ec80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:06:12 +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 I have a feeling much discussion can be avoided if one keeps in mind the fundamental rule: All players have a responsibility that opponents shall know everything they need on expressed or implied agreements. This responsibility can be met by properly made out CC's and by answering questions. It is never the responsibility of opponents to know that they might need to ask questions unless they have been explicitly alerted to such effect. A player may of course select not to bother opponents with extraneous information about agreements that he believes will be of no use for them in the particular case, but at his own risk, and if it should afterwards be revealed that this information would have had any impact to the benefit of opponents then he is likely to be facing a ruling against himself under the concealed agreements clause. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 18 20:19:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IAJZp09299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:19:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IAJTH09295 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:19:30 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3IA8Au21150 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:08:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:08 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? 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: <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > Well, at the moment the question is asked, that is all that one needs. > The next bidder needs to know that 4NT was not "to play" and might be > passed. Anything else is at that moment very probable not needed, and > if it is, the player can ask and I will tell everything and I trust > the TD will not hold my partner to UI obligations. If I am thinking of bidding over 4N it will often be important to me what responses are being played (including DOPI/ROPI etc). The structure you use to handle interference will alter the chances of interference throwing you off course. I would prefer not to have to ask a follow-up question, but I will if I have to. > But if I reply "40-31 RKCB" to the same question, I feel I have just > given partner UI. So what. If partner knows you are playing 4031 RKCB the UI doesn't suggest anything - if he thinks you are playing 1430 you should be able to trust him to interpret the response as 1430. (If partner is inexperienced and doesn't do that he will say something after the hand like "weren't we meant to be playing 1430" and you can call the TD and get him to adjust). Despite my general belief that names are not sufficient explanations I do actually believe that "Blackwood" will often be a precise, meaningful and complete explanation of opps agreements. But if they have agreed anything apart from standard Blackwood (with no other discussion) then that answer *is* insufficient. 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 Apr 18 21:58:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IBw5J09436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:58:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IBw0H09432 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:58:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.45.86] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16yAMd-000E6s-00; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:46:11 +0100 Message-ID: <010001c1e6ce$a737fbc0$562de150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Ed Reppert" , "Kooijman, A." , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] How high can one appeal? [was Insufficient bid - direct question] Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:32:28 +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 Grattan Endicott To: "Kooijman, A." ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: 17 April 2002 13:54 Subject: [BLML] How high can one appeal? [was Insufficient bid - direct question] > On 4/17/02, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > >And yes this is my PERSONAL LC member opinion (saves a remark from > Grattan) > +=+ "The Bermuda Principle" +=+ > > This raises a question that perhaps > might be considered by the WBF LC. > The WBF asserts that it is the final > arbiter of the meaning of the laws, > as well it should. Yet there is in the > laws no procedure for an appeal > beyond the National Authority. It > seems to me that there ought to be > a formal way to carry a case beyond > that level. > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ I am very happy to support the view that it is something we should consider writing into the Laws. For what it is worth conversation, more or less casual, with Edgar led me to believe he thought that so far as the player is concerned the national authority is the end of the matter. He allowed that an NBO could consult a zonal authority, and that a Zone could take a question to the WBF. Which is what I have assumed to be the position (since I know no better), although logic suggests that NBOs affiliated to the WBF are fully entitled to go to the WBF direct. Being the old cynic that I am, I also thought this scheme of things protected his position with the ACBL - which would perhaps want to be master of all decisions within its ambit, and would therefore refer 'very little' to the WBF. (You may be reminded that the EBL for its part did indeed refer to the WBF the legality of prohibiting psyches of artificial openers, and the English did consult on the prohibition of use of conventions with natural opening bids lacking prescribed values. That answers were forthcoming suggests that in some obscure way Edgar did operate a procedure.) ~ 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 Apr 18 23:22:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IDLw209717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:21:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IDLqH09713 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:21:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yBgG-0007KW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:10:33 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418082235.00aa72e0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:10:44 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <200204162225.PAA21211@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:25 PM 4/16/02, Adam wrote: >Eric wrote: > > > Nobody has suggested that the WBF does not have the power to permit > the > > Austrians to ban psychs. But many here have argued that they have a > > moral obligation to amend L40 either to make the existing loophole > > explicit or to close it; they should not compromise their authority > > just because the most comfortable thing to do right now is look the > > other way. > >Eric preceded this with a discussion about the ACBL previously leaving >it up to local units whether to ban blacks. It should be noted that at the time, the folks running the ACBL (from New York then) were for the most part personally in favor of integration, and did integrate their Nationals. Their official policy, though, was to let each unit decide for itself. Despite this, when a majority of the players in (at least) two major big-city units voted to integrate, and the losers of those votes complained loudly enough, the ACBL allowed them to secede and form new units of their own for the express purpose of keeping their games segregated. >I do not think this analogy is relevant. There are moral issues >involved in racial discrimination. There are, however, no moral >issues involved in the rules of the game, or in the rules of any game >(beyond such basics as treating people equally and fairly, and >avoiding favoritism). Bridge does not become a more or less moral >game if the rules are changed to allow or disallow psychs, or allow or >disallow some conventions or some natural calls or some systems or >whatever. It becomes a slightly different game, but the rule change >has no moral effect whatsoever. So arguing from the basis of "moral >obligation" is, I think, inappropriate. (I acknowledge that Eric was >attributing this argument to others and not necessarily making it >himself.) It seems to me, though, that when people would prefer the >rules to be a certain way so that they can do something they'd like to >do (psych conventional openings or play their pet forcing pass system >or whatever), and they get denied because the majority don't want to >play by those rules, some people try to turn it into a moral issue. >This, to me, is an abuse of the concept of "morality". I didn't mean to suggest that the moral issue had anything to do with the implicit morality of banning blacks, or disallowing psychs, or whatever. The analogy stems from the moral issues involved in abandoning one's stated principles in the interest of "keeping everybody happy". >Eric wrote: > > > . . . There are good reasons for the WBF to let NCBOs > > run the game however they please, regardless of what their players > > want. But let's not pretend that doing anything their governing > bodies > > choose to do is the same thing as carrying out the consensual will of > > their respective memberships. > >This is a good point. Certainly, when the ACBL Board of Directors >makes regulations, they do not always have the best interests of the >members at heart. Sometimes they make rules that benefit themselves >or other influential top players. What isn't clear, though, is why >the WBF should necessarily do any better. The members of the WBF >committees are drawn from the same species (Homo occasionally sapiens) >as in the ACBL, and thus are subject to the same failings as the rest >of humankind, such as being tempted to favor their friends. Plus, the >WBF is one step further removed from rank-and-file bridge players than >the ACBL. Probably, the ones who really know what's in the best >interest of members' enjoyment are at the local and club levels, and >perhaps they ought to be given a lot of leeway in running the games as >they see fit. However, there's probably a lot more practical >disadvantage to having games run with all different sets of rules >within a zone, than there is to having games in different zones run >with different sets of rules. Perhaps the WBF would not do any better. But the WBF, the ACBL, and all of our other NCBOs are signatories to an agreement that grants the WBF the authority to make the laws for everyone. The NCBOs have ceded that authority, and the WBF has acknowledged and accepted it. Now it's up to them to exercise it; they're the only ones that can. If they delegate it, they remain responsible for the actions of those to whom they delegate it, and for the results they produce. They have an obligation to do the job they agreed to do. That others might -- even that the WBF might believe that others would -- do the job better is no excuse for their not doing it to the best of their ability. If the WBF truly believes that their member organizations would regulate the game in a manner that better serves their respective players than having the WBF do so, should they not abjure their lawmaking authority, allow the lower-level authorities to make whatever laws and rules they deem to be in their players' best interests, and confine their role to simply that of one more SO, with their authority limited to making the laws and rules for international events? If they don't, do they not have an obligation to step up to the plate and do their best to make laws and rules for everyone, and enforce them? In either case, they have a moral obligation to decide, and to act in accordance with what they decide. They compromise their moral authority when they refuse to do so. We're not talking about some abstract set of theoretical principles; we're talking about a game that's being played right now, every day, by hundreds of thousands. The question is not whether the ACBL *should* know better than the WBF what best serves their players, but whether they *do*. There is no question that the WBF has permitted the ACBL (and other NCBOs) to skirt -- some would say disregard -- the laws they have written and promulgated. So the evidence they need to come to a decision, and take the action appropriate to that decision, is out there for the gathering. 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 Apr 18 23:51:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IDovF09766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:50:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IDooH09761 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:50:51 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yC8K-0005uM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:39:32 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418092146.00b0fe70@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:39:43 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] The Sabbath was made for... (was 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 07:51 PM 4/16/02, richard wrote: >2. The nature of bridge, the game, exists >independently of the Laws. >Example: In the 1930s a Laws revision ridiculously >increased vulnerable penalties. This proposition >was thought to be so contrary to the nature of >bridge that it was repealed a year later. Interesting, and curious. The numbers themselves must have been what was deemed "contrary to the nature of bridge". Obviously, there is a consensus that modifying the scoring table is not in itself "contrary to the nature of bridge", as this was done in 1987 with virtually no objection. >4. Therefore, in an ideal world, the Laws of >Bridge should be as skeletal as possible. This >would allow SOs and ZOs maximum freedom to regulate >the nature of bridge to fit the local culture. If the Laws of Bridge were "as skeletal as possible", we would have a very short international code, which would read, in total: "L1. Zonal organizations shall make such laws and rules as they see fit, and shall be free to delegate that authority to their member NCBOs." It is up to those who have repeatedly said that ZOs and NCBOs are in a better position to judge what best serves their own members than the WBF is to either defend the proposition that that would be a good thing, or to explain why it would not, given their premise. 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 Apr 19 00:06:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IE6ae09788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:06:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IE6VH09784 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:06:32 +1000 (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 16yCNO-0007bw-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:55:10 +0100 Message-ID: <8I+xS9J7Jhv8EwGX@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 01:25:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts 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: > >> >+=+ (1) It might be thought a deviation rather than a psyche. >> >> No, I do not think so. I believe that when a bid shows by inference >> that it is the longest suit in the hand to do it on a suit that cannot >> be the longest suit is a psyche because it is a gross deviation. > >As always the actual hand/circumstances may affect one's decision and hard >and fast rules are difficult to apply. Holding KJx,-,xxxxx,xxxxx I might >judge to reply 1S in response to partner's 1H opening (whether or not >there is an intervening double). I know partner generally expects 4S and >better values but I think 1S actually gives a good practical shot at >improving the contract (nothing wrong with playing in a 33 fit once in a >while). As with all judgement issues YVMV. To respond 1S to 1D on xxx QJxx xx KT9x for example, is a psyche, not a deviation, assuming normal methods. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 00:44:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IEhmx09813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:43:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IEhgH09809 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:43:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yCxU-0002I2-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:32:24 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418094843.00b11380@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:32:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415110342.00aa0560@pop.starpower.net> <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop> <3C9E42E4.6263.965964@localhost> <003101c1d3d2$0e12f1c0$ac0ce150@dodona> <009e01c1d448$fcfa9920$d916b9d2@laptop> <37KDe0NhAzt8EwVh@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003f01c1e2ac$13ba18e0$c215b9d2@laptop> <00b601c1e32d$38b983c0$8249e150@dodona> <007601c1e347$8e8134a0$f116b9d2@laptop> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415110342.00aa0560@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:11 PM 4/16/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > >David is certainly correct that there is no question as to the legality > >of the Austrian ban on psychs, or the ACBL's ban on the 9-point 1NT > >opening. The WBF has addressed the question, and has pronounced upon > >it. End of discussion (at least with respect to the current state of > >the Law). > > I have never said that the Austrian ban on psyches is legal, and I >prefer not to be quoted as saying so. The EBL ban on psyches is legal. >What is the difference? - the EBL is banning psyches of conventional >bids, which is legal under L40D: the Austrians are banning psyches of >natural openings [inter alia]. I see the fundamental debate here as between two opposing points of view: (1) The WBF has been given the authority to write the laws as they see fit, which means that they have the authority to interpret those laws as they see fit. Ultimately, the laws are what the WBF say they are. (2) The WBF has been given the authority to write the laws as they see fit. But having done so, they must either abide by what they have written or change it. Ultimately, the laws are what TFLB says they are. My apologies to David if I mistakenly attributed position #1 to him when he actually holds position #2. > >But Wayne is correct as well. There is no way in h--l that someone > >simply reading TFLB with no knowledge of the existence, much less > >substance, of the WBF promulgation on the subject would come to the > >conclusion that the legality of the Austrian or ACBL regs was in any > >sense obvious, or even suggested. > > While that is true, it is not relevant. I am quite sure that if I >picked up a golf rule book, and read it through, I would miss a lot of >points. You do not learn and understand rules just by looking at a >book. We have discovered the depth of the effect of the laws by >discussion here and elsewhere over a period of time and many people. The debate here isn't between folks who have just picked up TFLB for the first time and read it through. It is between people who have probably read almost every word in TFLB hundreds of times and have spent years (seven years on BLML in my case, at least that much in David's) analyzing and arguing about the meaning of individual passages, words, even punctuation marks. If my statement above is indeed true, then holding it to be irrelevant is taking position #1. If one accepts position #2, it is very relevant. > >I do not, of course, believe that "the rest of the world is wrong, and > >Wayne is right". But neither do I beleive that the rest of the world > >is right, and Wayne is wrong. To be realistic, David should have said > >that the WBF and those that are privy to its workings are right, and > >the rest of the world, Wayne included, are wrong. > > Why should I say that if I do not mean it? I just mean that when we >find out what the situation is it does not necessarily make a lot of >sense to just say "It isn't" when there is a strong body of evidence in >its favour. I especially dislike it when it does no good. I did not say that David doesn't mean what he said; I said that he is wrong. I maintain that the "rest of the world" -- which includes not just those who hold position #2, but also those who hold position #1 but are unaware of the WBF "promulgation" -- do *not* believe that L40 permits an SO to ban psychs. Whether they're right or wrong depends on whether one accepts position #1 or position #2. > It reminds me of the terrorist approach: screw you, we are doing it >our way. Roman Catholics believe that the Word of God means what the Pope interprets it to mean; to be a Roman Catholic is to acknowledge his authority to interpret what God wrote. Protestants (to be strictly accurate, Protestants of most sects) believe that the Word of God is written in the Holy Bible. They may understand and acknowledge that they have the duty and responsibility to listen to and consider how eminent and/or presumptive authorities interpret those words, but to be a Protestant is to accept the ultimate responsibility for interpreting those words for themselves. I am not a Protestant, but Protestant doctrine does not remind me of terrorists. 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 Apr 19 00:57:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IEvSZ09829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:57:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IEvMH09825 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:57:23 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3IEjwM17045; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:45:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:42:33 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00a901c1e6a1$cd8bd120$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/17/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >Read L20F2. Defenders may ask for an "explanation of the opposing >auction" only, while declarer may question individual calls. I have. In the context of all of 20F2, I think the meaning is that declarer doesn't have to go through asking about the entire auction before he can ask about individual calls, but the defenders cannot, because asking directly about a specific call pinpoints interest about that call. One might argue that supplemental questions do that anyway, but it's an imperfect world in any 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 19 01:26:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IFQdF09878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:26:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IFQWH09873 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:26:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3IFF8M25049; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:15:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:48:27 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: "John (MadDog) Probst" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/18/02, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >It's no different from a pre-alert - is it? Sure it is. Only certain specific methods require a pre-alert. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371, and on my web site pgp key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 19 01:26:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IFQaE09877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:26:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IFQTH09868 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:26:29 +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 g3IFF7M25026; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:15:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:50:04 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Sven Pran , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <006801c1e6c0$abc7ec80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/18/02, Sven Pran wrote: >I have a feeling much discussion can be avoided if one >keeps in mind the fundamental rule: Nice rule. When did the WBF include it in the laws? :-) 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 19 01:26:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IFQmb09884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:26:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IFQeH09880 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:26:41 +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 g3IFFCM25111; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:15:12 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:46:26 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <00e901c1e6a9$13e327c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/18/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >I had one pro opponent who refused to read my CC, insisting that I (in >effect) read it for him. Such oafishly bad manners should be a Zero >Tolerance offense. You don't need zero tolerance. It's a violation of the proprieties. But either way, screw him. Call 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 19 01:53:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IFrDY09927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:53:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IFr8H09923 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:53:08 +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 LAA08567 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA23332 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:41:48 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:41:48 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204181541.LAA23332@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > The meaning of any bid can be disclosed with one of three "explanation > templates": > > "That shows..." > "That asks about..." > "That shows... and asks about..." I'd suggest that the explanation template should usually start with "[Natural/artificial] and [forcing/non-forcing], and shows..." (Pick one from each of the words in brackets.) _In principle_, the description should include the set of hands that are being shown. However, with asking bids, that is sometimes too hard, so as a practical compromise, it might be all right to say what the bid is asking about. However, we should realize this is a poor second choice, only to be taken if the preferred option is too hard. As a practical matter, if you think about it, most asking bids can be explained in terms of what they show. For Ogust, for example, it might be "Artificial and forcing, either a weak hand with support, or any hand with game or slam interest that needs to know more information and doesn't have a suit that needs support." I don't believe the opponents are entitled, as a matter of law, to know what the subsequent methods will be. What if we play "step responses over fourth hand methods in class A, but feature responses over methods in class B?" -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 02:01:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IG1dE09947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:01:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IG1YH09943 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:01:34 +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 LAA09063 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:50:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA23369 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:50:14 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 11:50:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204181550.LAA23369@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > The reasons why I still stick to this interpretation of Law 27B1 are > twofold: > 1: It is consistent (and remember the laws has not been changed on this > matter for at least 25 years) > 2: I fail to see any purpose of Law27B1(b) without this interpretation. I am astonished at 2. There have been numerous messages giving an alternate purpose for L27B1b. *One* purpose for sure is to prevent "two-way bids." Examples given were 1C-2C=artificial but 1C-1C oops 2C=natural. Another example was showing both aces and kings at the 5-level in response to Blackwood. Another was the original 1H-2H auction, where additional levels of asking bids result in a contract that could not otherwise have been reached. The test is whether the non-offenders are damaged, i.e., whether the offenders reach a good contract they are not likely/at all probable to reach with a legal auction. L72B1 may cover most such cases nowadays, but it may miss some, and anyway it wasn't available prior to 1997. The whole argument is whether there is an *additional* purpose of L27B1b, as Sven and a few others wish there to be. We can also notice other cases of redundancy in the Laws. Is L23 really needed, for example, now that 72B1 is present? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 02:19:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IGIvA09967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:18:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IGIqH09963 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:18:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yERZ-0007af-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:07:33 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418110207.00b0f960@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:07:45 -0400 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 06:43 AM 4/17/02, twm wrote: >And for those who care it will certainly assist in gaining IOC acceptance >and TV coverage. I had a nightmare last night. In it, I picked up my brand new ACBL Bulletin, fresh from the mail, opened to the President's Letter, and found the following: "As you know, last year the Board of Directors appointed a Director of Media Relations, who was specifically chartered to explore the possibility of having high-level ACBL tournament events presented on television. As we reported at the time, he has a vast amount of knowledge and experience in this area, and has previously held similar and highly successful positions with the NHL and the WWF. He has spent the past year meeting with media and public relations consultants, and with representatives of the broadcast and cable networks. Recently, he presented his report to the Board, accompanied by verbal presentations by himself and a number of other consultants and network representatives. "The report concluded that these events, as currently conducted, would not attract a sufficient audience to justify broadcasting them, but that a few small changes would result in events which would attract a substantial and dedicated following. A representative of one of the networks committed his organization to contracting with the ACBL to televise three major ACBL events next year on a trial basis, with the possibility of an ongoing, permanent arrangement to follow if the events achieved acceptable ratings, if such changes are enacted. "The Board of Directors has long believed that the most effective practical way to achieve its stated primary goal of attracting new members is to have bridge played on television. They have therefore agreed to make the changes requested by the network, and have now signed a contract. Accordingly, they have issued the following official statement: "'Under the authority vested in us by L80F, the following regulation, supplementary to L74, shall take effect immediately: "'Notwithstanding any of the existing provisions of L74, which remain in force, none of the following shall be considered violations of law subject to penalty: "'(a) Abusing or harassing a partner who has made a bidding or play error, or who has made a bid or play resulting in a score less than the maximum achievable by their side, by word, tone of voice, gesture or other means not involving physical contact. "'(b) Committing physical violence upon a partner who has made a bidding or play error, or who has made a bid or play resulting in a score less than the maximum achievable by their side, which, in the opinion of the Director, is sufficiently egregious or results in a sufficiently bad score; if the Director deems the circumstances not sufficiently egregious, he may impose a penalty of one quarter of a board. Use of weapons or the striking of blows below the waistline are not permitted under any circumstances; violations are subject to penalty, in the discretion of the Director, of up to one full board. "'(c) Intimidating, harassing or ridiculing opponents by word, tone of voice, gesture or other means not involving physical contact. Physical violence against opponents is not permitted under any circumstances; violations are subject to penalty, in the discretion of the Director, of up to one full board.' "Management and the Board expect and encourage all players to take full advantage of the new regulations. To assist them in doing so, the Board has appointed three of their members to a select committee for the purpose of educating the membership as to how they are expected to act when participating in ACBL events. They have specifically been requested to present a draft of an official publication to be called 'Guidelines for Active Attitude' prior to the Fall meeting of the Board. "A few days before I write this, an insignificant group of misguided malcontents, obviously opposed to any increase in ACBL membership, petitioned the governing board of the WBF to overturn these carefully considered and written new regulations on the spurious grounds that they violate both the letter and the spirit of the international Laws of Duplicate Bridge and do irreparable harm to the so-called 'fundamental spirit of the game', or, alternatively, to require the ACBL to modify them as a condition of continuing WBF membership. The governing board of the WBF met in emergency session yesterday to consider their petition. The WBF officially declined to take any action, citing their fundamental belief that local authorities are in a better position than the WBF to judge what best serves the interests of their respective memberships. "Now it is up to every ACBL member to get on the bandwagon and make sure we succeed in our common goal of turning bridge into a game that will attract as large a television audience as possible." 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 Apr 19 02:31:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IGVQW09999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:31:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from spitfire.velocet.net (spitfire.velocet.net [216.138.223.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IGVHH09990 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:31:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from tragedy.biomass.to (H75.C233.tor.velocet.net [216.138.233.75]) by spitfire.velocet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D10FB469F for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:19:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by tragedy.biomass.to (Postfix, from userid 1005) id 92C7824360F; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:17:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid Reply-To: mycroft@biomass.to In-reply-to: <00b701c1e32d$39a48000$8249e150@dodona> References: <005201c1e2f7$2310fd40$273df0c3@tkooij> <00b701c1e32d$39a48000$8249e150@dodona> Message-Id: <20020418161745.92C7824360F@tragedy.biomass.to> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -------- On 13 April 2002 at 21:50, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > >I support the concept >of establishing the principle in the laws and allowing the >regulators to fine tune it to their particular ambience. >I think the wish to dictate all from the centre is despotic, >high-handed, and particularly unpragmatic when it aims >to shackle major institutions such as zonal organizations. I, to a certain extent, agree with you. However, there are those of us who wish more widely-promulgated guidelines from the WBF like their CoP; some also wish not to shackle, but to limit the fine-tuning to that which can be seen to be at least vaguely supportable through the laws by any bridge player who knows the terms, is reasonably intelligent, and has access to a copy of the Laws. In cruder terms, if it pegs my b******t meter, it's no longer "fine-tuning", it's either "ignoring" or "rewriting". Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 02:31:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IGVPw09998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:31:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from spitfire.velocet.net (spitfire.velocet.net [216.138.223.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IGVEH09986 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:31:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from tragedy.biomass.to (H75.C233.tor.velocet.net [216.138.233.75]) by spitfire.velocet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B8EFB47DA for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by tragedy.biomass.to (Postfix, from userid 1005) id 28558243695; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:17:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 (fwd) Reply-To: mycroft@biomass.to In-reply-to: References: Message-Id: <20020418161742.28558243695@tragedy.biomass.to> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:17:42 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -------- On 12 April 2002 at 23:22, David Stevenson wrote: >Tim West-meads writes > >>To honest I am absolutely amazed that the WBF *wants* to grant such powers >>to ZOs/SOs or indeed anyone.* > > What do you think they should do? Tell NCBOs not to run the game for >the benefit of their members? > How about tell the NCBOs to do what they tell the members of those NCBOs to do - if you don't like the Laws, petition, get involved in WBF politics, whatever is necessary to get them looked at? Remember, the 800 lb. gorilla Eric L. is talking about is the same one that resolved to petition the WBF to allow them to only send one delegate to WBF Executive meetings - but still get the 5 votes assigned to Zone II. The WBF said the equivalent of "you have *got* to be kidding" to that one... One of the biggest problems in NA bridge - from a governance point of view - is that the ACBL is both the ZO for Zone II and the SO for "ACBL-regulated events". Though this has somewhat been mitigated, as far as international qualifying is concerned, by the Olympic requirement for *national* sanctioning bodies (though I'm not too sure how much the USBF is going to be a puppet government - we'll wait and see) it's still a problem. Witness the "if Zone II is only allowed 2 teams, then 2 US teams qualify, and the rest of Zone II is SOL" debacle - though it does seem that they've done the sensible thing for the next time this comes up (qualify USA I, have playoff between USA II, CAN, MEX). Surely things like that are "for the benefit of their members" - even the non-US ones? They have to be; the ZOs choose to do it, so by your argument, it is. > ---------- > >Eric Landau writes > >>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. > > What do they want to fight for? It is a reasonable presumption that >the authorities in NAmerica have some idea what is good for NAmerican >players. Why should an international organisation based in Paris want >to tell NAmerica how to regulate? > It is a reasonable presumption, in the US at least, that the authorities in NAmerica will do whatever they think is best for the authorities in NAmerica and those that favour them (with friendship, campaign funds, politicing, whatever) within the limits of what the laws surrounding them explicitly say - and that they'll at least try to stretch the wording of those laws in any way they think they can get away with. The members' only expectation is that the authorities will do only as much for the benefit of the members as will be necessary to Madison Ave. themselves back into office. Note that this, in the long run, is what they think is best for the authorities in NAmerica...and that the members are rarely surprised by the authorities exceeding their expectations. In fact, it is so much of a presumption, based on the way they were treated by the authorities in the eighteenth century, that the most important item of US Jurisprudence is a document stating specifically what limits the NAmerican authorities are *not allowed* to do. And somehow, despite all this, the U.S. Supreme Court still says regularly "Nope, sorry, you tried to pull a fast one, can't do that." Now, realize that politics in the ACBL has even less to do with ACBL members than politics in US Government - Eric has detailed the process behind BoD and BoG elections, and the L&EC members are all appointed by said BoD - and you may have less wonder that many NAmericans want a set of Laws they can read and understand to say "this far, and no farther". > ---------- > > Just because some BLML members believe the Austrian approach is flawed >legally they seem to conclude that it is not in the best interests of >the game. I do not see why this follows. > Whether or not the Austrian *regulation* is in the best interests of the game or not I am not capable of judging. I happen to have an opinion - and anyone with a year's experience on BLML knows it - but I realize that I am biased. I also realize that many of my opponents do not share my bias, and with many of them, their reaction ranges from resigned acceptance ("So, what are you playing *today*?") to malice, to outright hatred (I reserve a small place in my heart for the lady pro, who after an EHAA 2H-p-4H auction, asked "and [opener] can bid again?" On the "yes, if he has a good enough hand" response, she then said "they shouldn't be allowed to play this". I only quietly mentioned that this system had been played for 20 years before what they were playing (2/1) had been invented, and the game continued...) However, the contempt for the Laws of the Game by their promulagators that such "legally flawed" regulations show I believe is not in the best interests of any game save those where playing with the rules is inherently part of the game (Nomic being probably the best example). Also, in any game where the players are expected to play to the spirit of the Laws, willing compliance is going to be much harder to come by if their regulating bodies choose to bend the letter of the Laws until they scream, but not break. If a body wishes to do something, petition to have the Laws changed so that they are allowed to. After all, that's what players who wish to play/not play against a regulated convention are told by the NCBOs to do, isn't it? David, I don't mean to be slagging you personally - I do realize that some of this is that you *do* have a very good idea what the rank-and-file of your members want, and that you are in a position to create regulations, and that you live in a country where honour is still assumed in your governors. I believe that if *you* say that such and such is what the members want, that you're right, at least 19 times in 20. I also believe that any regulations you promulgate are designed to do what they say, and aren't designed to provide loopholes so that you or your friends can do what you *want* to do, but know wouldn't fly if you actually *said* that's what you wanted to do. I do not have that confidence of the EBU L&EC committee as a whole, though I have no evidence to the contrary - I am just a trained paranoid. I have some confidence in my belief that the ACBL BoD and LC do not know what the members want, and more confidence that they do not care, and I hold with pure certainty that the ACBL have made decisions that are intended to look liberal while allowing them to be as conservative as they wish. I also believe that it's in part the WBF's gentle handling of the ACBL (in particular) that causes the whines from noted USAnian bridge luminaries that "they need an 800-page book of defences to go to the Bermuda Bowl, because of all those strange systems out there". You see, they've effectively removed them from all the opponents *they* have to face in their lives, except when they travel outside Zone II, so they have no need, nor knowledge, of the simple generic defences to non-American conventions that other countries' LOLs do. Of course, I find it truly stupefying that the international qualifiers for USA teams are not played under the WBF regulations of the tournament they are qualifying for - nothing like handicapping the home side, is there? But I guess the main point I have is that you come from a society that trusts their governors (as do I - our constitution is intended to promulgate "peace, order and good government"), and the people on the other side of the argument come from a society that *assumes* their governors to be untrustworthy. And, as I said earlier, are rarely disappointed. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 02:31:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IGVS310000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:31:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from spitfire.velocet.net (spitfire.velocet.net [216.138.223.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IGVEH09985 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:31:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from tragedy.biomass.to (H75.C233.tor.velocet.net [216.138.233.75]) by spitfire.velocet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E514FB4596 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by tragedy.biomass.to (Postfix, from userid 1005) id 0A42D24360F; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:17:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Reply-To: mycroft@biomass.to In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404142959.00abd750@pop.starpower.net> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404142959.00abd750@pop.starpower.net> Message-Id: <20020418161738.0A42D24360F@tragedy.biomass.to> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:17:38 -0400 (EDT) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -------- On 4 April 2002 at 15:03, Eric Landau wrote: >(2) Besides the information which must be given in reply to a generic >inquiry, what other information may properly be requested about the >meanings of other partnership agreements? I think the answer to that >is "anything". Any bona fide[*] question about the opponents' >agreements is legitimate, and must be answered as fully and completely >as one would be required to answer a question about a call actually made. > >[*] By "bona fide" I mean any question to which the questioner >genuinely believes he needs the answer to best select his own >subsequent call[s]; the right to request disclosure of the opponents' >bidding methods is limited only by various prohibitions against asking >questions for reasons other than wanting to know the answer (e.g. to >stall, harass or intimidate (per L74), or to communicate with one's >partner (per L73)). > I hold a somewhat median position between Eric and Marvin, from what I've read here. I believe that you should describe your agreement (not the responses, but the agreement) despite the fact that it will create UI for partner. So, for 2S-2NT!, I reply "Artificial, Forcing, asking me to describe the quality of my hand." (unless I'm playing with Eric, of course, in which case it is "Natural, Invitational, denies 3 spades. May be somewhat offshape, as we have no other invitation that denies support." But that's a whole 'nother round of boiled turbot.) Does that provide UI to partner? Sure it does. Does that require him, if he had forgotten we were playing Ogust, to interpret my 3D bid as showing a non-mimimum with a diamond card? Sure it does - and if I hear anything from him later about waking up, I'm calling the director and reporting it. Do I expect him to be ethical? Of course I do. Do I expect my opponents to be ethical? Yes. Do I expect them to know enough to know that "waking up" is improper? No (but I wish they did). Do I call the TD when I think a waking up has occured? Of course. Do I accuse anyone of being unethical? Not unless I have heard the TD, at my table, explain to them that this *is* improper - and even then I say nothing, simply file a recorder form, which only states the facts (including my firsthand knowledge of their having the Law explained to them). However (to eventually get to my point, or at least the point of keeping what I've quoted), I believe another exception to "bona fide" is "asking questions with the intent of forcing UI to be passed to replyer's partner". I've seen this - lots of questions about "what does this mean?" "what else could he bid", about a (fairly obviously) misunderstanding sequence, to ensure that both opponents have enough UI from responses to not be allowed to wake up to the misunderstanding and get out with a squarish zero. I haven't - yet - seen the TD called afterward to attempt to get the L16 adjusted score; but that may just be that I know L73 and don't play with anyone who doesn't remember it after they're told once. I have been known to write down the answer to a particular question and pass it to the questioner. No accusations - after all, I do assume that anyone who is pulling a "pro question" or "UI-tying" doesn't know that it's improper. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 02:38:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IGcM510031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:38:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IGcGH10027 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:38:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (80-200-2-15.adsl.powered-by.skynet.be [80.200.2.15]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3IGQqr28407 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:26:52 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CBEF40A.4050300@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:27:54 +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] What should be included in "full explanation"? 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: <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> > Herman wrote: > > >>Well, at the moment the question is asked, that is all that one needs. >>The next bidder needs to know that 4NT was not "to play" and might be >>passed. Anything else is at that moment very probable not needed, and >>if it is, the player can ask and I will tell everything and I trust >>the TD will not hold my partner to UI obligations. >> > > If I am thinking of bidding over 4N it will often be important to me what > responses are being played (including DOPI/ROPI etc). The structure you > use to handle interference will alter the chances of interference throwing > you off course. I would prefer not to have to ask a follow-up question, > but I will if I have to. > And I have never said that opponents are not entitled to the information they think they require. But they should ask. > >>But if I reply "40-31 RKCB" to the same question, I feel I have just >>given partner UI. >> > > So what. Well, lots of times I'm not certain. This solves those cases. And there would be nothing you can do about it ? If partner knows you are playing 4031 RKCB the UI doesn't > suggest anything - if he thinks you are playing 1430 you should be able to > trust him to interpret the response as 1430. (If partner is inexperienced > and doesn't do that he will say something after the hand like "weren't we > meant to be playing 1430" and you can call the TD and get him to adjust). > How can you trust someone when he's uncertain in the first place as well? And how can you, as director, decide that the pair are honest? Better not to go down that route and not ask people to add the response scheme into their replies. > Despite my general belief that names are not sufficient explanations I do > actually believe that "Blackwood" will often be a precise, meaningful and > complete explanation of opps agreements. But if they have agreed anything > apart from standard Blackwood (with no other discussion) then that answer > *is* insufficient. > There is a constant struggle between sufficient and insufficient explanation, but it brings us no further if we close our eyes to those factors that "talk good" less than complete explanations (such as time pressure and UI issues).. > 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 Fri Apr 19 02:53:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IGrDH10058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:53:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IGr7H10054 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:53:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3036.bb.online.no [80.212.219.220]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA23454 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:41:42 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001901c1e6f7$eba42bc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 18:41:42 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > On 4/18/02, Sven Pran wrote: > > >I have a feeling much discussion can be avoided if one > >keeps in mind the fundamental rule: > > Nice rule. When did the WBF include it in the laws? :-) Laws 20F, 40B, 75A & 75C And there is I believe a recent decision that if an alert is not noticed by opponent the responsibility for damage lies with the alerting player, not with that opponent. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 03:06:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IH62710156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:06:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IH5vH10152 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:05:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from MarvinFrench (dt091n2d.san.rr.com [204.210.47.45]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with SMTP id g3IGsck19999 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:54:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <001501c1e6f9$ae377600$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Bridge in the Olympics Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:53:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 WBF wants to be recognized by the International Olympic Committee as an International Federation for the game of contract bridge >From the Olympic Charter: 1 The 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; As long as the WBF enforces its existing by-laws, compliance with 1.1 should not be a problem. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 03:09:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IH9J610180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:09:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IH9DH10176 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:09:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16511; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:58:11 -0700 Message-Id: <200204181658.JAA16511@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: [BLML] Bidding backwards Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:58:11 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is related to a thread that got started on r.g.b. The original poster had a legitimate question, but got East and West reversed in the bidding diagram. It therefore looked like North opened 1C, *West* bid 1D out of turn, then South bid 1H. Naturally, a couple posters decided to attack the bidding-out-of-turn question rather than answer the real question. (Yeah, I might have done the same thing if they hadn't gotten to it first.) David desJardins claimed that South's 1H bid is not an infraction. His reasoning: West's 1D was a bid out of turn; this bid was not accepted, and therefore, by L31B, East is barred from the auction. Since it's East's turn to call, but East is required to pass, South's 1H is considered to be in rotation by L28A. I have some problems with this. For starters, after West's 1D bid out of turn, North has the decision whether to accept or not. South bid before North had the opportunity to make this decision. Does South's action violate any Laws, and if so, what? I can't find anything specific in the Laws that makes South's bid illegal. (We'll assume that no one has mentioned that West's bid was out of turn, so that no one has violated L9B.) Assume the TD is called after the 1H bid, and the TD has to sort it all out. Apparently, South's 1H bid has not condoned West's BOOT, since the language of L29A gives only North the option to condone, and since I can't find anywhere in the Laws saying that a call out of rotation condones any not-yet-handled previous irregularity committed by the opponents. (I thought there was such a Law, but I can't find it.) So how should we rule, and what Laws do we base our ruling on? Which of the following happens? (1) The 1H bid is cancelled without penalty; the TD asks North whether he wishes to accept the call, and if not, East must pass and South can then repeat the 1H call. (Or can South then make any call he chooses?) (2) The 1H bid is cancelled, but it's UI to North, who must bend over backward to avoid using this information when deciding whether to accept the BOOT. (3) North's options become restricted because of the 1H call. (4) Despite what I wrote above, we rule that 1H condones West's BOOT and itself becomes a BOOT. (5) Something else. -- 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 Apr 19 03:12:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHCXu10218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:12:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IHCSH10214 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:12:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yFHR-0002YK-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:01:09 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418125621.00b28170@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:01:20 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts In-Reply-To: References: <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1vkD7PCT8Ev8Ew1a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:28 AM 4/17/02, David wrote: >Grattan Endicott writes > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> Ted Ying writes > >> > >> > And this does not constitute a psyhce since the ACBL > >> > designates that 3+ card suits are natural. > > >> If it shows 4+ cards then it is a psyche when you do it > >> on three cards. > > >+=+ (1) It might be thought a deviation rather than a psyche. > > No, I do not think so. I believe that when a bid shows by inference >that it is the longest suit in the hand to do it on a suit that cannot >be the longest suit is a psyche because it is a gross deviation. You have agreed that you overcall in five-card or longer suits; from practice and experience you know that when one of you overcalls, partner can safely infer that he is bidding his longest suit and act accordingly. The auction goes 1H-? You hold AKJx/x/Qxxxx/KQx and choose to overcall 1S. Psych or deviation? 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 Apr 19 03:16:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHGG310233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:16:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IHGAH10229 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:16:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3036.bb.online.no [80.212.219.220]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA14336 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:04:45 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002701c1e6fb$23dc3b60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204181550.LAA23369@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:04:45 +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: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Sven Pran" > > The reasons why I still stick to this interpretation of Law 27B1 are > > twofold: > > 1: It is consistent (and remember the laws has not been changed on this > > matter for at least 25 years) > > 2: I fail to see any purpose of Law27B1(b) without this interpretation. > > I am astonished at 2. There have been numerous messages giving an > alternate purpose for L27B1b. Neither of those arguments are valid: > > *One* purpose for sure is to prevent "two-way bids." Examples given > were 1C-2C=artificial but 1C-1C oops 2C=natural. 2C being artificial will bring the case under Law 27B2 > Another example was > showing both aces and kings at the 5-level in response to Blackwood. Again, as all Blackwood responses are conventional the law is L27B2. > Another was the original 1H-2H auction, where additional levels of > asking bids result in a contract that could not otherwise have been > reached. The existence of such a system has not been demonstrated, we only have the claim that it is possible. This is definitely not sufficient to argue the example as being the (only) purpose of L27B1(b). > The test is whether the non-offenders are damaged, i.e., > whether the offenders reach a good contract they are not likely/at all > probable to reach with a legal auction. L72B1 may cover most such > cases nowadays, but it may miss some, and anyway it wasn't available > prior to 1997. And there is a serious disagreement whether "damage" in the terms of Law27 shall be measured against the likely result had there been no IB infraction, or against the likely result as if the replacement bid under L27B1(a) were the only one by offender in that round. Historically it can be no doubt that the latter has been the rule since the childhood of Bridge, a question is if that rule has ever been changed. > > The whole argument is whether there is an *additional* purpose of > L27B1b, as Sven and a few others wish there to be. Please don't tell me that I argue for an *additional* purpose, I argue that it is *the* purpose because no other purpose has so far been demonstrated. > > We can also notice other cases of redundancy in the Laws. Is L23 really > needed, for example, now that 72B1 is present? No, but it serves as a clarification. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 03:20:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHK5R10252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:20:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IHK0H10245 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:20:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yFOj-0004IZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:08:41 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418130507.00aa9c00@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:08:49 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020417162034.00a7aa80@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 10:25 AM 4/17/02, Alain wrote: >AG : Michel Gleis, a well-known player in the Brussels area >and a master theorician of bidding, is known to us as >"Confucius", for his ability to thrust subtle maxims at you with great >naturalness. >This Confucius once said "when both players are willing to play in a >4-3 fit, it ends in a 3-3 fit, which doesn't always mean they're wrong." Our local Confucius once said, "When you have mastered the 3-3 fit, the 4-3 fit is easy." 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 Apr 19 03:25:38 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHPHi10268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:25:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IHPCH10264 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:25:12 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g3IHE9W17693 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:14:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200204181714.g3IHE9W17693@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge in the Olympics To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:14:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <001501c1e6f9$ae377600$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Apr 18, 2002 09:53:57 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > The WBF wants to be recognized by the International Olympic Committee as > an International Federation for the game of contract bridge > > From the Olympic Charter: > > 1 The 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; > > As long as the WBF enforces its existing by-laws, compliance with 1.1 > should not be a problem. > And yet you look at Salt Lake City and you see Hamman/Smith rather than Hamman/Soloway. Soloway has no hope of passing any kind of drug test and yet none of the meds he's on are performance enhancing for bridge. (Well he'll die quickly without them, and that rates to affect results. But I think you know what I mean) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 03:35:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHZb810283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:35:37 +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 g3IHZVH10279 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:35:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3036.bb.online.no [80.212.219.220]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA07351; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:24:06 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004101c1e6fd$d8669380$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200204181658.JAA16511@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:24:06 +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: "Adam Beneschan" > This is related to a thread that got started on r.g.b. The original > poster had a legitimate question, but got East and West reversed in > the bidding diagram. It therefore looked like North opened 1C, *West* > bid 1D out of turn, then South bid 1H. Naturally, a couple posters > decided to attack the bidding-out-of-turn question rather than answer > the real question. (Yeah, I might have done the same thing if they > hadn't gotten to it first.) > > David desJardins claimed that South's 1H bid is not an infraction. > His reasoning: West's 1D was a bid out of turn; this bid was not > accepted, and therefore, by L31B, East is barred from the auction. > Since it's East's turn to call, but East is required to pass, South's > 1H is considered to be in rotation by L28A. This is definitely not correct. East is not barred from the auction until the director has been at the table and made a ruling (Law10A) > > I have some problems with this. For starters, after West's 1D bid out > of turn, North has the decision whether to accept or not. South bid > before North had the opportunity to make this decision. Does South's > action violate any Laws, and if so, what? I can't find anything > specific in the Laws that makes South's bid illegal. (We'll assume > that no one has mentioned that West's bid was out of turn, so that no > one has violated L9B.) The bid by South itself is in any case a bid out of turn. If for nothing else after a call by West the player in turn is North and after a call by North the player in turn is East. East has not made any call and the director has not made any ruling so there is no way South can be in turn. > > Assume the TD is called after the 1H bid, and the TD has to sort it > all out. Apparently, South's 1H bid has not condoned West's BOOT, > since the language of L29A gives only North the option to condone, and > since I can't find anywhere in the Laws saying that a call out of > rotation condones any not-yet-handled previous irregularity committed > by the opponents. (I thought there was such a Law, but I can't find > it.) So how should we rule, and what Laws do we base our ruling on? > Which of the following happens? > > (1) The 1H bid is cancelled without penalty; the TD asks North whether > he wishes to accept the call, and if not, East must pass and South > can then repeat the 1H call. (Or can South then make any call he > chooses?) > (2) The 1H bid is cancelled, but it's UI to North, who must bend over > backward to avoid using this information when deciding whether to > accept the BOOT. > (3) North's options become restricted because of the 1H call. > (4) Despite what I wrote above, we rule that 1H condones West's BOOT > and itself becomes a BOOT. > (5) Something else. The director may rule no penalty to East-West under Law 11A. This law does not depend upon attention being called to the irregularity, it simply becomes relevant on any action by non-offending side after an irregularity. The fact is that, at the discretion of the Director, the only penalty on this board might be for the 1H bid out of turn by South. But there is nothing to prevent the director from also penalizing East-West if he feels that to be called for. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 03:36:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHaMZ10296 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:36:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IHaGH10292 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:36:16 +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 NAA14515 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA23962 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:24:57 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:24:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204181724.NAA23962@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > The whole argument is whether there is an *additional* purpose of > > L27B1b, as Sven and a few others wish there to be. > From: "Sven Pran" > Please don't tell me that I argue for an *additional* purpose, I argue > that it is *the* purpose because no other purpose has so far been > demonstrated. Ah, well, so it goes. I think the arguments are now clear; we can let readers decide for themselves. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 03:39:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHdC710314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:39:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IHd7H10310 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:39:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yFhE-0001T6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:27:48 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418131055.00b1f680@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:28:00 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: <200204171539.IAA28513@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:39 AM 4/17/02, Adam wrote: >Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > The examples: > > > > Law 40E says "such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, > > only method" - these words are, IMO, absolutely fundamental to the > whole > > game. The ACBL has resorted to using 40D to restrict the style and > > judgement of any player playing a natural 10-12 NT. (Ie they may not > > upgrade even the world's best 9 count unless thery forego all > > conventions). > >There are larger issues involved that I'm not yet ready to respond to, >but I think you're technically wrong about this one. On reading the >text of Law 40E, I believe that the parenthetical phrase "such a >regulation must not restrict style and judgement" applies >*specifically* to the previous phrase, which gives SO's the right to >require that both members of a partnership play the same system. >Since this paragraph is actually about convention cards, I don't think >there's any legitimate reading of the Laws that allows you to turn >this parenthetical phrase into a general principle that applies to all >of Law 40. Apparently the ACBL agrees with Adam. In an area widely held to have the best TD talent in the ACBL, at our unit game, widely held to be the best and strongest in the ACBL, one of the regular TDs recently handed out a full board penalty to a player who hadn't been at a duplicate for several years for judging that a nine-point hand was worth an opening 1NT, showing 10-12 by agreement. He made his ruling after the player readily admitted that he indeed held 9 Work HCP, without looking at the hand. He stated that this was required by ACBL regulations. Now Marv has said that Gary Blaiss has said that what the ACBL has said does not mean that opening a 10-12 NT with 9 HCP is automatically subject to penalty, but I'll believe that fourth-hand rumor only when the ACBL bothers to pass it on to their TDs. Putting that aside, Adam has raised an interesting question. Do the laws generally forbid restricting pure style and judgment, as opposed to method, or is that only prohibited when making a regulation specifically "requir[ing] that both members of a partnership employ the same system"? Perhaps our lawmakers have already promulgated some interpretation of L40 that would answer this question; if so, I trust they will share it with 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 Fri Apr 19 03:41:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHf2310333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:41:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IHetH10323 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:40:56 +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 NAA14786 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:29:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA24023 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:29:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204181729.NAA24023@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > And there is I believe a recent decision that if an alert > is not noticed by opponent the responsibility for damage > lies with the alerting player, not with that opponent. This would depend on what the alert rules say and on how they are interpreted. In WBF play, they are indeed as Sven says, but they are not new. I'm sure there are appeals cases at least five years old saying that, in effect, an unseen alert is no alert at 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 Fri Apr 19 03:51:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHp6A10352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:51:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IHp1H10348 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:51:01 +1000 (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 g3IHdgk11218 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <004c01c1e6ff$f9d1a6c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1vkD7PCT8Ev8Ew1a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418125621.00b28170@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 10:37:13 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 have agreed that you overcall in five-card or longer suits; from > practice and experience you know that when one of you overcalls, > partner can safely infer that he is bidding his longest suit and act > accordingly. The auction goes 1H-? You hold AKJx/x/Qxxxx/KQx and > choose to overcall 1S. Psych or deviation? > Normal practice for many pros playing with a weak client. It finally dawned on me recently (I'm a bit slow) that a number of pros do not use the takeout double with weak clients, instead overcalling in a four-card major, even a weak one. Psych or deviation? Alertable? Permissible? 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 Apr 19 03:55:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IHspK10367 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:54:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IHskH10363 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:54:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yFwN-0005Tg-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:43:27 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418133428.00aa4100@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:43:39 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <004801c1e632$47552440$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:04 PM 4/17/02, Marvin wrote: >From: "Ed Reppert" > > > > The regulations of the ACBL require one to explain the meaning of >one's > > calls, and specifically state that "explanation" by naming a >convention > > is inadequate. They are, however, silent on the matter of including >the > > name as *part* of an explanation. I would suggest, however, that the > > name is superfluous if the meaning is adequately explained. > > > > This is wrong: > > > > "Alert!" > > "Explain please." > > "Ogust." > > > > This is correct: > > > > "Alert!" > > "Explain please." > > "Forcing, asking about my strength, both overall and in trumps." > >This is not correct, as it reminds opener that the partnership is no >longer playing "feature" rebids. A good reason to make 2NT >non-Alertable, as in ACBL-land. Let them look at the CC if they want to >know in advance the meaning of opener's rebids after a 2NT response. > >This is correct: > >"Alert" >"Explain please." >"Artificial, forcing, no implied strength" (assuming that is the >partnership agreement) Why stop there? If we truly believe that it is appropriate to reply to, "Explain please," by disclosing only such information about our agreements as will avoid the risk of passing UI to partner, should we not answer every such request with, "That either tells me something or asks me something," and let the opponents read our CC or ask additional questions if they wish to know more? 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 Apr 19 04:21:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IIL2K10392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 04:21:02 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IIKvH10388 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 04:20:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yGLi-0004vY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:09:39 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418135632.00aa8460@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:09:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020417174101.00a8af00@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:57 PM 4/17/02, Ed wrote: >On 4/17/02, Eric Landau wrote: > > >to 99.9% of bridge players, "forcing" is shorthand > >for "natural and forcing" > >I must be in the 0.1%, because it would never have occurred to me that >"forcing" implies "natural". To me, forcing means forcing, that's all. Really, Ed, given the context in which I made that statement (responding to an inquiry about the meaning of a bid)? "1H." "Pass." "2H." "Alert!" "Please explain." "Forcing." Would you really continue by asking, "Is it natural or artificial?" or "Does it show hearts?" If you didn't, and if it turned out that 2H was forcing, promised spades, and said nothing about hearts, would you really believe that you had received adequate disclosure, and that any subsequent damage was consequent solely on your failure to protect yourself by asking for additional clarification? If so, my gut feeling and experience tell me that 0.1% is a significant overestimate. 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 Apr 19 04:52:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IIqKX10419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 04:52:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IIqFH10415 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 04:52:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yGq0-0005iu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:40:56 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418142807.00b1e550@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:41:08 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: <006801c1e6c0$abc7ec80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@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 06:06 AM 4/18/02, Sven wrote: >I have a feeling much discussion can be avoided if one >keeps in mind the fundamental rule: > >All players have a responsibility that opponents shall know >everything they need on expressed or implied agreements. >This responsibility can be met by properly made out CC's >and by answering questions. It is never the responsibility of >opponents to know that they might need to ask questions >unless they have been explicitly alerted to such effect. > >A player may of course select not to bother opponents with >extraneous information about agreements that he believes >will be of no use for them in the particular case, but at his >own risk, and if it should afterwards be revealed that this >information would have had any impact to the benefit of >opponents then he is likely to be facing a ruling against >himself under the concealed agreements clause. That agrees with the ACBL's stated position. I don't have the actual words to hand, but they are along the lines of, "Any inquiry about the meaning of an agreement should trigger a reply which contains all relevant information." That doesn't mean that you are expected to repeat verbatim every word your partnership has ever uttered on the subject. But it does mean that if you withhold something that in your opinion the opponents "have no need to know", and it subsequently turns out that you were wrong, that the opponents might have taken a different action leading to a better result had you revealed some aspect of your agreements that you chose not to, you are obligated to accept the resulting penalty in good grace. I make no argument here as the wisdom of this position. But it is worth noting that the ACBL has also taken the official position that notwithstanding the obligation to provide all relevant information in reply, the player asking the question still has an obligation to "protect himself" by requesting additional information as necessary. That, as I see it, is a problem for the ACBL, as these positions are in apparent conflict. Combined, they seem to say that you are obligated to provide your opponents, on any inquiry, with all relevant information about your agreements, except when you're not. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 05:13:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IJCiX10443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 05:12:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IJCcH10439 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 05:12:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3036.bb.online.no [80.212.219.220]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA27651; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:01:13 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <007101c1e70b$68ce6da0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418142807.00b1e550@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:01:12 +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: "Eric Landau" > >All players have a responsibility that opponents shall know > >everything they need on expressed or implied agreements. > >This responsibility can be met by properly made out CC's > >and by answering questions. It is never the responsibility of > >opponents to know that they might need to ask questions > >unless they have been explicitly alerted to such effect. > > > >A player may of course select not to bother opponents with > >extraneous information about agreements that he believes > >will be of no use for them in the particular case, but at his > >own risk, and if it should afterwards be revealed that this > >information would have had any impact to the benefit of > >opponents then he is likely to be facing a ruling against > >himself under the concealed agreements clause. > > That agrees with the ACBL's stated position. I don't have the actual > words to hand, but they are along the lines of, "Any inquiry about the > meaning of an agreement should trigger a reply which contains all > relevant information." That doesn't mean that you are expected to > repeat verbatim every word your partnership has ever uttered on the > subject. But it does mean that if you withhold something that in your > opinion the opponents "have no need to know", and it subsequently turns > out that you were wrong, that the opponents might have taken a > different action leading to a better result had you revealed some > aspect of your agreements that you chose not to, you are obligated to > accept the resulting penalty in good grace. > > I make no argument here as the wisdom of this position. > > But it is worth noting that the ACBL has also taken the official > position that notwithstanding the obligation to provide all relevant > information in reply, the player asking the question still has an > obligation to "protect himself" by requesting additional information as > necessary. That, as I see it, is a problem for the ACBL, as these > positions are in apparent conflict. Combined, they seem to say that > you are obligated to provide your opponents, on any inquiry, with all > relevant information about your agreements, except when you're not. In Norway we rule that a player who should have known that he has reason to ask more questions cannot claim damage when he didn't. Example 1: 4NT "What is that?" - "Blackwood". There is no reason for him to ask "what kind of Blackwood?" (Blackwood is a well defined standard, these days used by relatively few experienced players). Example 2: 3S "What is that?" - "Preemptive". The opponent cannot claim damage if he takes an action based upon the assumption that the call denies any side top honour and does not ask. Preemptive bids may deny or allow for instance a side Ace. Example 3: 2D "What is that?" - "Multi". Multi is pretty well known in Norway, and if the player asking doesn't know it, he is supposed to ask again for an elaboration. Are you sure similar considerations are not in the minds of ACBL? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 05:29:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IJTbT10459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 05:29:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IJTWH10455 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 05:29:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17554; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:18:29 -0700 Message-Id: <200204181918.MAA17554@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Apr 2002 14:41:08 EDT." <4.3.2.7.0.20020418142807.00b1e550@pop.starpower.net> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:18:29 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > But it is worth noting that the ACBL has also taken the official > position that notwithstanding the obligation to provide all relevant > information in reply, the player asking the question still has an > obligation to "protect himself" by requesting additional information as > necessary. That, as I see it, is a problem for the ACBL, as these > positions are in apparent conflict. Combined, they seem to say that > you are obligated to provide your opponents, on any inquiry, with all > relevant information about your agreements, except when you're not. I don't think there's necessarily a contradiction. If a player does not provide all the relevant information he should, he has committed an infraction. But if his opponent "should have known" that he needed to request additional information, but did not, then it's possible for the TD to rule that there was no damage (i.e. any damage was self-inflicted). This isn't a contradiction, because there are already many situations under the Laws where a player commits an infraction and an adjustment is not called for. A PP might be called for, though. In such situations, the TD could easily believe that the opponent was trying to get away with a double shot: "I know there's probably MI here, but I'll play out the board anyway and take my result if it's a good one, and complain if it's a bad result". I think it's probably worthwhile to discourage such tactics. -- 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 Apr 19 06:09:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IK9Fl10482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:09:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IK9AH10478 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:09:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yI2R-0002zI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:57:51 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418153038.00b26520@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: elandau@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:58:04 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk For at least the last two decades, the ACBL has been totally and consistently forthcoming in stating that their primary objective in running bridge in North America is to maximize the size of the ACBL, by recruiting new members and retaining existing ones. Every year, the new President of the ACBL, in his first President's Letter column in the Bulletin, has rededicated himself and his Board to achieving that objective. They are not hypocritical about this; their principal consideration in their exercise of their regulatory authority has consistently been to serve the needs and desires of their prospective future new members and their inactive or only marginally active potential dropouts. They have never attempted to make the patently absurd claim that there is no conflict between the needs and desires of this group and the needs and desires of the ACBL's regularly active members. So when Michael accuses the ACBL of putting the needs and desires of the ACBL as a corporate body (what is often referred to as "empire building" in other contexts) over the needs and desires of their individual members, he is saying nothing that the ACBL has not itself freely admitted. And when the WBF justifies their lack of interference on the grounds that the ACBL knows better than the WBF what best meets the needs and desires of their individual members, they overlook the fact that even if the ACBL may indeed know, they do not, by their own admission, care. Eric Landau elandau@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 Apr 19 06:49:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IKnGD10507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:49:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IKnBH10503 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:49:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yIfA-0004Qr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:37:52 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418161332.00aa26d0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:38:05 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards In-Reply-To: <200204181658.JAA16511@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:58 PM 4/18/02, Adam wrote: >This is related to a thread that got started on r.g.b. The original >poster had a legitimate question, but got East and West reversed in >the bidding diagram. It therefore looked like North opened 1C, *West* >bid 1D out of turn, then South bid 1H. Naturally, a couple posters >decided to attack the bidding-out-of-turn question rather than answer >the real question. (Yeah, I might have done the same thing if they >hadn't gotten to it first.) > >David desJardins claimed that South's 1H bid is not an infraction. >His reasoning: West's 1D was a bid out of turn; this bid was not >accepted, and therefore, by L31B, East is barred from the auction. >Since it's East's turn to call, but East is required to pass, South's >1H is considered to be in rotation by L28A. > >I have some problems with this. For starters, after West's 1D bid out >of turn, North has the decision whether to accept or not. South bid >before North had the opportunity to make this decision. Does South's >action violate any Laws, and if so, what? I can't find anything >specific in the Laws that makes South's bid illegal. (We'll assume >that no one has mentioned that West's bid was out of turn, so that no >one has violated L9B.) > >Assume the TD is called after the 1H bid, and the TD has to sort it >all out. Apparently, South's 1H bid has not condoned West's BOOT, >since the language of L29A gives only North the option to condone, and >since I can't find anywhere in the Laws saying that a call out of >rotation condones any not-yet-handled previous irregularity committed >by the opponents. (I thought there was such a Law, but I can't find >it.) So how should we rule, and what Laws do we base our ruling on? >Which of the following happens? > >(1) The 1H bid is cancelled without penalty; the TD asks North whether > he wishes to accept the call, and if not, East must pass and South > can then repeat the 1H call. (Or can South then make any call he > chooses?) >(2) The 1H bid is cancelled, but it's UI to North, who must bend over > backward to avoid using this information when deciding whether to > accept the BOOT. >(3) North's options become restricted because of the 1H call. >(4) Despite what I wrote above, we rule that 1H condones West's BOOT > and itself becomes a BOOT. >(5) Something else. #5. W's 1D bid was out of turn. L29 applies. N may opt to continue the auction in accordance with either L29A or L29B. If he elects the latter, E will be required to pass. But until he does so, E is under no such obligation. S's 1H call was not made at a time when E was obligated to pass. L28A does not apply. S has also bid out of turn, subsequent to W's having done so. The TD should give N his option under L29. If he elects to continue under L29A, it is his turn; if he elects to continue under L29B, it is E's. In either case, S's bid is still out of turn -- it may be E's call, and E may be required to pass, but S's call is not "considered to be in rotation", because E was not required to pass when the call occurred -- and must be dealt with before the auction continues. The TD should now offer W the choice of continuing the auction under either L29A or L29B. 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 Apr 19 06:54:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IKsbV10520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:54:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IKsWH10516 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:54:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yIkL-0005go-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:43:13 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418163939.00aa0e90@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:43:26 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge in the Olympics In-Reply-To: <001501c1e6f9$ae377600$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:53 PM 4/18/02, Marvin wrote: >The WBF wants to be recognized by the International Olympic Committee as >an International Federation for the game of contract bridge > > From the Olympic Charter: > >1 The role of the IFs is to: >1.1 establish and enforce, in accordance with the Olympic spirit, the >rules concerning the practice of their respective sports and to >ensure their application; > >As long as the WBF enforces its existing by-laws, compliance with 1.1 >should not be a problem. Unless, of course, their bylaws are not "in accordance with the Olympic spirit". I wonder what that means. I've never read the Olympic Charter, but I'll bet I know who gets to decide, and it ain't bridge players. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 07:02:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IL2dB10536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:02:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail44.fg.online.no (mail44-s.fg.online.no [148.122.161.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3IL2XH10532 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:02:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2804.bb.online.no [80.212.218.244]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA14536; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:51:08 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008101c1e71a$c4110420$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418163939.00aa0e90@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge in the Olympics Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:51:08 +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: "Eric Landau" ..... > >As long as the WBF enforces its existing by-laws, compliance with 1.1 > >should not be a problem. > > Unless, of course, their bylaws are not "in accordance with the Olympic > spirit". I wonder what that means. I've never read the Olympic > Charter, but I'll bet I know who gets to decide, and it ain't bridge > players. As far as I can recall "Olympic spirit" has nothing to to with any dicipline of sport, it deals with the spirit in which one participates in competitions. As such there is no need for a judge of "olympic spirit" to be an active sportsman in that particular dicipline. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 07:09:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IL8jq10549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:08:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IL8eH10545 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:08:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18185; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:57:36 -0700 Message-Id: <200204182057.NAA18185@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Discussion List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:38:05 EDT." <4.3.2.7.0.20020418161332.00aa26d0@pop.starpower.net> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 13:57:37 -0700 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:58 PM 4/18/02, Adam wrote: > > >This is related to a thread that got started on r.g.b. The original > >poster had a legitimate question, but got East and West reversed in > >the bidding diagram. It therefore looked like North opened 1C, *West* > >bid 1D out of turn, then South bid 1H. . . . > >Which of the following happens? > > > >(1) The 1H bid is cancelled without penalty; the TD asks North whether > > he wishes to accept the call, and if not, East must pass and South > > can then repeat the 1H call. (Or can South then make any call he > > chooses?) > >(2) The 1H bid is cancelled, but it's UI to North, who must bend over > > backward to avoid using this information when deciding whether to > > accept the BOOT. > >(3) North's options become restricted because of the 1H call. > >(4) Despite what I wrote above, we rule that 1H condones West's BOOT > > and itself becomes a BOOT. > >(5) Something else. > > #5. W's 1D bid was out of turn. L29 applies. N may opt to continue > the auction in accordance with either L29A or L29B. If he elects the > latter, E will be required to pass. But until he does so, E is under > no such obligation. S's 1H call was not made at a time when E was > obligated to pass. L28A does not apply. S has also bid out of turn, > subsequent to W's having done so. > > The TD should give N his option under L29. If he elects to continue > under L29A, it is his turn; if he elects to continue under L29B, it is > E's. In either case, S's bid is still out of turn -- it may be E's > call, and E may be required to pass, but S's call is not "considered to > be in rotation", because E was not required to pass when the call > occurred -- and must be dealt with before the auction continues. The > TD should now offer W the choice of continuing the auction under either > L29A or L29B. If it's ruled that South has bid at East's turn, "dealing with the BOOT" is actually pretty much null. If East is required to pass, South then must repeat the 1H call (L31A1) and there is no penalty. There's actually no point in offering West the choice whether to condone South's BOOT, because the result will necessarily be the same whether or not West condones the call. At least we all agree that South did commit an infraction. -- 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 Apr 19 07:37:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3ILb6g10569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:37:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3ILb1H10565 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:37:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yJPS-0005tl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:25:42 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418165114.00b1eef0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:25:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question In-Reply-To: <002701c1e6fb$23dc3b60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200204181550.LAA23369@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:04 PM 4/18/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Steve Willner" > > > We can also notice other cases of redundancy in the Laws. Is L23 > really > > needed, for example, now that 72B1 is present? > >No, but it serves as a clarification. I disagree (although from recent posts, I suspect I may be in the minority). I don't read L23 as redundant to L72B1, based on my reading of the latter. I don't understand how a player who could not have known that he was committing an infraction simultaneously "could have known that his infraction would be likely to damage the non-offending side". I therefore believe that in order to apply L72B1, the TD must determine that the offender "could have known" -- a very different thing from "did know" -- that he was committing an infraction. That means reading "could have known" in the sense of "might have known", not in the sense of "would have known under different circumstances which did not actually occur". I argue for that reading on the grounds that the alternative would make every infraction ever committed to the detriment of one's opponents' score subject to redress under L72B1, and that that was patently not the intent of L72B1. I therefore read L23 as saying that the provisions of L72B1 also apply, regardless of whether or not the offender could have known that he was committing an infraction, when the penalty for the infraction "would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn", if the offender "could have known that *the enforced pass* [emphasis mine] would be likely to damage the non-offending side". IOW, I argue that "the infraction" and "the enforced pass" are two different things, that L72B1 deals (directly) with damage from the former while L23 deals (additionally) with damage from the latter, and that this means that there is a class of actions to which the redress provisions of L72B1 apply only because L23 says they do. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 07:43:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3ILhYI10585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:43:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3ILhSH10581 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:43:29 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2804.bb.online.no [80.212.218.244]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA23477; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:32:04 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009701c1e720$7bc28580$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200204182057.NAA18185@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:32:00 +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: "Adam Beneschan" > > >This is related to a thread that got started on r.g.b. The original > > >poster had a legitimate question, but got East and West reversed in > > >the bidding diagram. It therefore looked like North opened 1C, *West* > > >bid 1D out of turn, then South bid 1H. . . . > > >Which of the following happens? > > > > > >(1) The 1H bid is cancelled without penalty; the TD asks North whether > > > he wishes to accept the call, and if not, East must pass and South > > > can then repeat the 1H call. (Or can South then make any call he > > > chooses?) > > >(2) The 1H bid is cancelled, but it's UI to North, who must bend over > > > backward to avoid using this information when deciding whether to > > > accept the BOOT. > > >(3) North's options become restricted because of the 1H call. > > >(4) Despite what I wrote above, we rule that 1H condones West's BOOT > > > and itself becomes a BOOT. > > >(5) Something else. > > > > #5. W's 1D bid was out of turn. L29 applies. N may opt to continue > > the auction in accordance with either L29A or L29B. If he elects the > > latter, E will be required to pass. But until he does so, E is under > > no such obligation. S's 1H call was not made at a time when E was > > obligated to pass. L28A does not apply. S has also bid out of turn, > > subsequent to W's having done so. > > > > The TD should give N his option under L29. If he elects to continue > > under L29A, it is his turn; if he elects to continue under L29B, it is > > E's. In either case, S's bid is still out of turn -- it may be E's > > call, and E may be required to pass, but S's call is not "considered to > > be in rotation", because E was not required to pass when the call > > occurred -- and must be dealt with before the auction continues. The > > TD should now offer W the choice of continuing the auction under either > > L29A or L29B. > > If it's ruled that South has bid at East's turn, "dealing with the > BOOT" is actually pretty much null. If East is required to pass, > South then must repeat the 1H call (L31A1) and there is no penalty. > There's actually no point in offering West the choice whether to > condone South's BOOT, because the result will necessarily be the same > whether or not West condones the call. At least we all agree that > South did commit an infraction. Unless there is more in this fictious story (yes, it has emerged from a misprint) than we know from the description I shall vote for: 1: The bid out of turn by West is handled under Law 11A, it is not condoned, but the right to penalize has been forfeited by South. 2: Then we have the bid out of turn by South, this is handled under Law29 and, unless condoned by West, under Law 31B (It was now partner - North's turn to call), so in that case North will have to pass for the rest of this auction while East and West may both call without restrictions. I'm afraid we shall not be able to penalize the bid out of turn by West without making it impossible to obtain a score on that 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 Apr 19 07:53:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3ILqgf10598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:52:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3ILqbH10594 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:52:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yJeY-00010B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:41:18 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418173419.00b23ec0@pop.starpower.net> X-Sender: ehaa@pop.starpower.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:41:31 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge in the Olympics In-Reply-To: <008101c1e71a$c4110420$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418163939.00aa0e90@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 04:51 PM 4/18/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" >..... > > >As long as the WBF enforces its existing by-laws, compliance with 1.1 > > >should not be a problem. > > > > Unless, of course, their bylaws are not "in accordance with the > Olympic > > spirit". I wonder what that means. I've never read the Olympic > > Charter, but I'll bet I know who gets to decide, and it ain't bridge > > players. > >As far as I can recall "Olympic spirit" has nothing to to with any >dicipline of sport, it deals with the spirit in which one participates >in competitions. As such there is no need for a judge of "olympic >spirit" to be an active sportsman in that particular dicipline. IOW, Sven is saying that what consitutes the "Olympic spirit" is self-evident; there is no need for any authority to judge what is or is not in accordance with it. B------t! IMHO, it is far from self-evident that it is a violation of the "Olympic spirit", for example, for an 80-year-old bridge player to take a life-sustaining drug that could potentially enhance the performance of a 23-year-old skier or basketball player. But somebody wrote that rule, and whoever he was he was authorized by the Olympic Charter to do so. 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 Apr 19 08:04:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IM3wE10616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:03:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IM3rH10612 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:03:53 +1000 (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 XAA03874 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:52:28 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <009b01c1e723$558d9be0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200204181550.LAA23369@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418165114.00b1eef0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:52:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > > > We can also notice other cases of redundancy in the Laws. Is L23 > > really > > > needed, for example, now that 72B1 is present? > > > >No, but it serves as a clarification. > > I disagree (although from recent posts, I suspect I may be in the > minority). I don't read L23 as redundant to L72B1, based on my reading > of the latter. > > I don't understand how a player who could not have known that he was > committing an infraction simultaneously "could have known that his > infraction would be likely to damage the non-offending side". I > therefore believe that in order to apply L72B1, the TD must determine > that the offender "could have known" -- a very different thing from > "did know" -- that he was committing an infraction. The way I read L72B1 it opens a door for the director to handle any irregularity where circumstances are such that it might be part of a setup by the offender, to treat it as if it were without having to prove intent. L72B1 does not say "if the offender could have known he was committing an infraction". L72B1 applies once it is possible, when an infraction has been committed that the offender "could have known that his infraction would be likely to damage ....". In order to apply L72B1 the director must be convinced that an infraction (intentional or inadvertent makes no difference) actually took place and that it is possible that the offender could have known this infraction might ("would be likely to") cause damage to opponents. As already said, he does not need to prove intent, nor does he need to prove probability. > > That means reading "could have known" in the sense of "might have > known", not in the sense of "would have known under different > circumstances which did not actually occur". I argue for that reading > on the grounds that the alternative would make every infraction ever > committed to the detriment of one's opponents' score subject to redress > under L72B1, and that that was patently not the intent of L72B1. "different circumstances" as a condition has no place with L72B1. > > I therefore read L23 as saying that the provisions of L72B1 also apply, > regardless of whether or not the offender could have known that he was > committing an infraction, when the penalty for the infraction "would > compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn", if the > offender "could have known that *the enforced pass* [emphasis mine] > would be likely to damage the non-offending side". > > IOW, I argue that "the infraction" and "the enforced pass" are two > different things, that L72B1 deals (directly) with damage from the > former while L23 deals (additionally) with damage from the latter, and > that this means that there is a class of actions to which the redress > provisions of L72B1 apply only because L23 says they do. "could have known he was committing an infraction" is completely irrelevant. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 08:26:05 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3IMPn310637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:25:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3IMPhH10633 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:25:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2804.bb.online.no [80.212.218.244]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA09554 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:14:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00a501c1e726$62f3c180$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418163939.00aa0e90@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418173419.00b23ec0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge in the Olympics Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:14:14 +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: "Eric Landau" > > > Unless, of course, their bylaws are not "in accordance with the > > Olympic > > > spirit". I wonder what that means. I've never read the Olympic > > > Charter, but I'll bet I know who gets to decide, and it ain't bridge > > > players. > > > >As far as I can recall "Olympic spirit" has nothing to to with any > >dicipline of sport, it deals with the spirit in which one participates > >in competitions. As such there is no need for a judge of "olympic > >spirit" to be an active sportsman in that particular dicipline. > > IOW, Sven is saying that what consitutes the "Olympic spirit" is > self-evident; there is no need for any authority to judge what is or is > not in accordance with it. > > B------t! > > IMHO, it is far from self-evident that it is a violation of the > "Olympic spirit", for example, for an 80-year-old bridge player to take > a life-sustaining drug that could potentially enhance the performance > of a 23-year-old skier or basketball player. But somebody wrote that > rule, and whoever he was he was authorized by the Olympic Charter to do so. I hope you are not saying this against better knowledge, but you are just plain simply wrong. There are several sportsmen who are licenced to use life-sustaining drugs that are prohibited to others who do not need them as such. Diseases I know about in this connection include asthma and blood circulation problems, for all I know there may be others as well. And I am definitely not saying "olympic spirit" is self evicent, it is in fact expressed very clearly in the Olympic charter, but you do not need to be an expert in a particular dicipline to know a cheat when you see him. I think a major problem with sport today generally is that many people bend the rules as best they can, trying to get away with actions that a generation ago would have had them expelled from any competition with no need to find a paragraph that made exactly that action illegal. (And don't try to convince me they do such actions in good faith) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 09:32:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3INWFd10674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:32:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3INWAH10670 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:32:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.63.153] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16yLCY-000DBd-00; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:20:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c1e72f$d27a63c0$993fe150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1vkD7PCT8Ev8Ew1a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418125621.00b28170@pop.starpower.net> <004c01c1e6ff$f9d1a6c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:13:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 6:37 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts > > From: "Eric Landau" > > > > You have agreed that you overcall in five-card or longer suits; > > from practice and experience you know that when one of you > > overcalls, partner can safely infer that he is bidding his longest > > suit and act accordingly. The auction goes 1H-? You hold > > AKJx/x/Qxxxx/KQx and choose to overcall 1S. Psych or > > deviation? > > > Normal practice for many pros playing with a weak client. It > finally dawned on me recently (I'm a bit slow) that a number of > pros do not use the takeout double with weak clients, instead > overcalling in a four-card major, even a weak one. Psych or > deviation? Alertable? Permissible? > > Marv > Marvin L. French > San Diego, California > +=+ (1) Judgement? +=+ +=+ (2) System after it has happened several times. +=+ +=+ (3) 'Safely'? I would be inclined to infer that he has Spades, probably at least five, and call on that assumption. If he is concealing a longer suit that is his prerogative unless we have an agreement, in which case we disclose it. ~ 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 Apr 19 10:04:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J04e310696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:04:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3J04ZH10692 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:04:35 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3INrE410096 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:53:14 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:53 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge in the Olympics 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418173419.00b23ec0@pop.starpower.net> Eric wrote: > IMHO, it is far from self-evident that it is a violation of the > "Olympic spirit", for example, for an 80-year-old bridge player to take > a life-sustaining drug that could potentially enhance the performance > of a 23-year-old skier or basketball player. But I can tell you that England would be hard pressed to put together a competent junior team if they were tested for (non performance enhancing) drugs - unless they were asked to exceed certain minima. 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 Apr 19 11:55:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J1sqY10775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:54:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3J1scH10765 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:54:39 +1000 (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 16yNQd-000EXx-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:43:18 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:50:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >>Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes >>>On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>> Ben Schelen writes >>>> >The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. >>>> >The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. >>>> >As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. >>>> >>>> You have lost me. >>>> >>>> The CC says they lead 1st, 3rd and 5th, yes? >>>> >>>> He has KT952, so he leads the 3rd, as the CC says? >>>> >>>> What is the problem? >>> >>>The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from a 3 or 4 card suit, >>>the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. >>> >>>IMHO, If a pair routinely leads either the 9 or 2 from the holding above >>>and calls it "3rd/5th", they are trying to hide their true agreements. >> >> I agree with your meaning of 3rd and 5th, and the same would apply >>here. >> >> But this pair is not playing 3rd and 5th, which implies nothing about >>honour leads, but 1st, 3rd and 5th, which does. >> >> Perhaps it is a language thing. >> >> Anyway, if 1st, 3rd and 5th does not imply the 9 from KT9xx [what does >>it mean, the king?] then they have false carded which is legal. >> >In my book A/3/5 does not say anything about interior honour leads. >My own card says: A/2/4 K/10/9. This is interpreted (in London) as: >Ace from Ace King empty, 2nd from bad suits, 4th from an honour(s). K >promises 3 honours, 10s and 9s are 0 or two higher. > >1/3/5 merely states Ace from Ace King, 3rd from honour fourth, bottom >from honour fifth. It says nothing about leads from bad suits and >nothing about intermediate honour leads. It has significant lack of >disclosure. Well, John, I have known a few players who claim to be playing 1st, 3rd and 5th. They would be surprised at your saying it has a significant lack of disclosure, and I agree with them: they always led the 1st, 3rd or 5th, and thus would not only lead the 9 from KT9xx, but would feel that they had said so. Why does A/3/5 disclose, and 1/3/5 not disclose? >I asked at the beginning of the thread for details of the lead style >from interior honour sequences and still haven't been told. If the >information is not available then I'm going to rule against on an MI >basis. Of course I actually believe they've no idea what they're doing, >but I await clarification before ruling on that basis. Pairs that play that an honour lead shows 0 or 2 higher would feel that they had disclosed. If they also play 3rd and 5th why should they not call it 1/3/5? I do not think you can say that a pair that gives you an abbreviation that shows what they are playing has disclosed fully if it is one you have heard of and has not disclosed when it is one that you have not heard of. In the latter case you seem to be assuming they are not playing what they say - why not? I will, however, agree with you in one way. The pair in the original case claimed to be playing 1st, 3rd and 5th. Now, this cannot possibly be read as meaning the ten from KT9xx, which is why I have always assumed the 9 was a true card. **If** they are playing the ten from KT9xx **then** they are not disclosing their methods adequately. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 11:55:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J1sne10772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:54:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3J1sYH10754 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:54:35 +1000 (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 16yNQd-000EXt-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:43:13 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:34:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415113704.00aa03b0@pop.starpower.net> <200204162225.PAA21211@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418082235.00aa72e0@pop.starpower.net> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418082235.00aa72e0@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 >Perhaps the WBF would not do any better. But the WBF, the ACBL, and >all of our other NCBOs are signatories to an agreement that grants the >WBF the authority to make the laws for everyone. The NCBOs have ceded >that authority, and the WBF has acknowledged and accepted it. Now it's >up to them to exercise it; they're the only ones that can. If they >delegate it, they remain responsible for the actions of those to whom >they delegate it, and for the results they produce. They have an >obligation to do the job they agreed to do. That others might -- even >that the WBF might believe that others would -- do the job better is no >excuse for their not doing it to the best of their ability. Are you talking about Laws, or rules? Sure, the WBF provides the Laws. But, as with all sports and mindsports, more local organisations provide further rules, such as general regulations, Conditions of Contest or whatever. An example has been given about discrimination by race. Now, the Law book could have a Law saying we must not discriminate. Alternatively individual countries could provide a regulation. Another alternative is that it is not illegal. Of course, the Laws on any particular country might make it illegal. But if the WBFLC does not make it illegal via its Law book [or some other over-riding WBF regulation] then it is not unreasonable for individual countries to either make it illegal, or not. To say that member countries have ceded the formation of rules to the WBF is just not true. The WBF provides over-riding Laws, yes, but there are many rules provided by other levels of the game. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 11:55:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J1soA10774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:54:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3J1sbH10760 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:54:38 +1000 (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 16yNQd-000EXv-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:43:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:40:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Ed Reppert" > >> On 4/17/02, Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >They are mostly correct, but the dump has to be incrementally >requested >> >at proper times if it comes during the auction. >> >> Not, as I understand it, according to (their interpretation of) that >> part of the acbl alert reg that says "any question should trigger full >> disclosure" (or words to that effect). >> >Full disclosure of the meaning of calls made to date, or calls that were >available but not made, and any inferences pertaining to those calls. > >But, during the auction, not calls that haven't been made yet. How you can say this when you are advocating giving partial answers to questions of calls made? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 11:55:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J1snW10773 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:54:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3J1sYH10755 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:54:35 +1000 (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 16yNQd-000EXu-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 02:43:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:39:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> <4c$wHVG93Wv8Ew3l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >David, sorry, we are not in disagreement here, so please don't pick on me. > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Herman De Wael writes >> >>>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>>If it is not in the Laws that one should be allowed to protect his >>>partner from the consequences of UI, then it should be. >>>If you are going to answer all questions concerning asking bids with a >>>complete enumeration of all the answers that partner is able to give, >>>then you are free to give UI. >>> >>>So that is simply not on. >>>A reply "asking bid" should be sufficient, and in my book, often is. >>> >> >> Full disclosure is necessary under L75A. it is also one of the >> building blocks of the ethical game. >Exactly, so you always reply a full 10 minutes' worth ? >No you don't. Of course not. You tell him the basics of what a call means, and if he asks for more, you give him more. >>>If an opponent really wants to know the answering scheme, then he is >>>entitled to this, but I really want to know what the reason for that >>>might be. >>>If the opponent wants to know what one is asking, that is more common. >>>But even then I don't see what it matters. >>> >>>So I would suggest that the answer to the question "what is 4NT?" >>>ought to be "asking for top cards". >> How very helpful. >Well, at the moment the question is asked, that is all that one needs. >The next bidder needs to know that 4NT was not "to play" and might be >passed. Anything else is at that moment very probable not needed, and >if it is, the player can ask and I will tell everything and I trust >the TD will not hold my partner to UI obligations. > >But if I reply "40-31 RKCB" to the same question, I feel I have just given >partner UI. If you don't you are deliberately withholding information that you should be giving. Remember my worst ever experience of a ruling at the table where a pair of Dutch cheats said "3D is forcing" as a response to 1H? And I was expected to realise that that meant that 3D was ***weak*** and showed a heart fit? And you allowed that? Do you really believe that L75A was followed by them telling me 3D was forcing? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 13:32:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J3VVr10843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:31:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (mailout5-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3J3VPH10839 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:31:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3J3K1M06770 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:20:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:11:27 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/18/02, David Stevenson wrote: >Herman De Wael writes [snip] >>Exactly, so you always reply a full 10 minutes' worth ? >>No you don't. > > Of course not. You tell him the basics of what a call means, and if >he asks for more, you give him more. > [snip] >>But if I reply "40-31 RKCB" to the same question, I feel I have just >>given partner UI. > > If you don't you are deliberately withholding information that you >should be giving. > > Remember my worst ever experience of a ruling at the table where a >pair of Dutch cheats said "3D is forcing" as a response to 1H? And I >was expected to realise that that meant that 3D was ***weak*** and >showed a heart fit? And you allowed that? > > Do you really believe that L75A was followed by them telling me 3D was >forcing? I don't. Nor do I believe it's in the same category as describing a 4NT bid as "asking for keycards, those being the 4 aces and the king of trumps", which, as far as I'm concerned, is a completely adequate response to a question like "what does 4NT mean?" 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 19 13:34:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J3YTU10855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:34:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3J3YOH10851 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:34:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3J3N0M09376; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:23:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:21:14 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418135632.00aa8460@pop.starpower.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/18/02, Eric Landau wrote: >Would you really continue by asking, "Is it natural or artificial?" or >"Does it show hearts?" No. I would say "tell me more, please." >If you didn't, and if it turned out that 2H was forcing, promised >spades, and said nothing about hearts, would you really believe that >you had received adequate disclosure, and that any subsequent damage >was consequent solely on your failure to protect yourself by asking >for additional clarification? No, and no. That wasn't my point. I can't find your message which prompted my reply, nor the reply itself, but iirc, I was responding to the comment that "forcing" means "natural and forcing" to 99.9% of bridge players. It doesn't mean that to me. IMO, "forcing", by itself, is an inadequate explanation of *any* call. 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 19 15:30:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J5Tup11088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:29:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3J5TpH11084 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 15:29:51 +1000 (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 g3J5ITk19065 for ; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:18:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <00e101c1e761$98d00c60$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418163939.00aa0e90@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bridge in the Olympics Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 22:14:10 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > At 12:53 PM 4/18/02, Marvin wrote: > > >The WBF wants to be recognized by the International Olympic Committee as > >an International Federation for the game of contract bridge > > > > From the Olympic Charter: > > > >1 The 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; > > > >As long as the WBF enforces its existing by-laws, compliance with 1.1 > >should not be a problem. > > Unless, of course, their bylaws are not "in accordance with the Olympic > spirit". I wonder what that means. I've never read the Olympic > Charter, but I'll bet I know who gets to decide, and it ain't bridge > players. > I couldn't find a definition of "Olympic Spirit," but these quotes from the IOC charter probably provide one, taken as a whole: Olympism is a philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind. Blending sport with culture and education, Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles. The goal of Olympism is to place everywhere sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to encouraging the establishment of a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity. To this effect, the Olympic Movement engages, alone or in cooperation with other organizations and within the limits of its means, in actions to promote peace. The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practised without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play. The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport in accordance with his or her needs 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 Apr 19 17:11:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J7Avk11153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:10:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3J7AoH11146 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:10:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.141.193] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16ySMP-000HGY-00; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:59:10 +0100 Message-ID: <007801c1e76f$e5e598e0$c18d403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020415113704.00aa03b0@pop.starpower.net> <200204162225.PAA21211@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418082235.00aa72e0@pop.starpower.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:59:30 +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: Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > ................. \x/ ................. > Are you talking about Laws, or rules? Sure, the WBF provides > the Laws. But, as with all sports and mindsports, more local > organisations provide further rules, such as general regulations, > Conditions of Contest or whatever. > > An example has been given about discrimination by race. Now, > the Law book could have a Law saying we must not discriminate. > Alternatively individual countries could provide a regulation. > +=+ A distinction should be made between the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge which are concerned with the procedures that govern the manner in which the game is played, and the Constitution and By-Laws of the WBF which govern the manner in which the WBF and its components and affiliates conduct their affairs. The WBF Constitution specifies conformity with the requirements of the Olympic Charter amongst the purposes for which it exists. I would think that covers the issue of racism. The WBF By-laws require that an NBO in membership "conduct its activities in compliance with both the Olympic Charter and the rules and regulations of the WBF" and "play bridge according to the current International Codes". Other goals in the Constitution of the WBF are to "fight against doping in sport", to "prevent endangering the health of bridge players", and to "establish standard laws for its contests adopting the International Code and supplementing it as may be required but not inconsistent with it". Regulations that are the subject of some debate on this channel are in order if they are "not inconsistent" with the Laws of D.C.B. Their conformance is a matter for interpretation. Now, isn't that the revolving door by which this discussion came in? ~ 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 Apr 19 17:11:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J7AtW11152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:10:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3J7AmH11143 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:10:48 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.141.193] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16ySMN-000HGY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 07:59:08 +0100 Message-ID: <007701c1e76f$e4afd800$c18d403e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 06:43:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: "Eric Landau" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, April 19, 2002 4:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? > IMO, "forcing", by itself, is an inadequate explanation of *any* call. > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ i.e. any call if it is not non-forcing? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 17:21:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J7Lhr11176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:21:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3J7LcH11172 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:21:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3J7AEH11634 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:10:16 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Apr 19 09:06:24 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGQQLEZLPW001QRW@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:09:45 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFKK8H>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:09:24 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:09:44 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Sven Pran'" , 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 > > The whole argument is whether there is an *additional* purpose of > > L27B1b, as Sven and a few others wish there to be. > sven: > Please don't tell me that I argue for an *additional* purpose, I argue > that it is *the* purpose because no other purpose has so far been > demonstrated. > Good argument to let me quit this discussion . Ignoring all what is said is the best way to uphold your own opinion. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 17:44:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J7hp311193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:43:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3J7hkH11189 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:43:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1843.bb.online.no [80.212.215.51]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA19043 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:32:20 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003101c1e774$571c9c80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:32:19 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kooijman, A." > > > The whole argument is whether there is an *additional* purpose of > > > L27B1b, as Sven and a few others wish there to be. > > Please don't tell me that I argue for an *additional* purpose, I argue > > that it is *the* purpose because no other purpose has so far been > > demonstrated. > > Good argument to let me quit this discussion . Ignoring all what is said is > the best way to uphold your own opinion. After ignoring your "examples" that automatically come under Law27B2 or is a theory on non-existent (hypothetical) bidding systems there is nothing left that could be applicable as purpose for law27B1(b). Thank 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 Fri Apr 19 17:45:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J7jb411205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:45:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3J7jWH11201 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:45:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3J7Y9H18549 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:34:10 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Apr 19 09:30:16 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGQRFERSIW001QTK@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:33:56 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFKM71>; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:33:35 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:33:55 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Eric Landau [mailto:ehaa@starpower.net] > Verzonden: donderdag 18 april 2002 23:26 > Aan: Bridge Laws Discussion List > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > > > At 01:04 PM 4/18/02, Sven wrote: > > >From: "Steve Willner" > > > > > We can also notice other cases of redundancy in the Laws. Is L23 > > really > > > needed, for example, now that 72B1 is present? > > > >No, but it serves as a clarification. > > I disagree (although from recent posts, I suspect I may be in the > minority). I don't read L23 as redundant to L72B1, based on > my reading > of the latter. > > I don't understand how a player who could not have known that he was > committing an infraction simultaneously "could have known that his > infraction would be likely to damage the non-offending side". I > therefore believe that in order to apply L72B1, the TD must determine > that the offender "could have known" -- a very different thing from > "did know" -- that he was committing an infraction. > > That means reading "could have known" in the sense of "might have > known", not in the sense of "would have known under different > circumstances which did not actually occur". I argue for > that reading > on the grounds that the alternative would make every infraction ever > committed to the detriment of one's opponents' score subject > to redress > under L72B1, and that that was patently not the intent of L72B1. I agree, but I don't see the relation with the following It is my impression that the LC does see L23 cases as a subclass of the cases covered by 72B1. ton > > I therefore read L23 as saying that the provisions of L72B1 > also apply, > regardless of whether or not the offender could have known > that he was > committing an infraction, when the penalty for the infraction "would > compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn", if the > offender "could have known that *the enforced pass* [emphasis mine] > would be likely to damage the non-offending side". > > IOW, I argue that "the infraction" and "the enforced pass" are two > different things, that L72B1 deals (directly) with damage from the > former while L23 deals (additionally) with damage from the > latter, and > that this means that there is a class of actions to which the redress > provisions of L72B1 apply only because L23 says they do. > > > Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 19:06:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J95gE11242 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:05:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f24.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3J95bH11238 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:05:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:54:12 -0700 Received: from 172.147.167.231 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:54:11 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.147.167.231] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 01:54:11 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2002 08:54:12.0695 (UTC) FILETIME=[C6E69E70:01C1E77F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Sven Pran" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question >Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:32:19 +0200 > >After ignoring your "examples" that automatically come under Law27B2 or >is a theory on non-existent (hypothetical) bidding systems there is nothing >left that could be applicable as purpose for law27B1(b). Will you accept this this example? 1H - P - 3C* - P * = Fit showing jump 2H corrected to 3H - P - 3S - P 4H - AP Remember from the definitions: "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." After a fit showing jump, bidding game can show a minimum opener while bidding shy of game can show hand values sufficient to investigate slam. Given the 2H bid corrected to 3H, 3H is not a slam-interested hand in this auction. Bidding 4H directly shuts the 3C bidder out of the action, so opener chooses 3H. In the continuing cue-bidding action, opener denies both minor aces. This may have caused damage if 5 or more hearts is a reasonable contract that fails. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 20:00:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3J9xkO11283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:59:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3J9xeH11279 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:59:41 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3J9m4h02922; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:48:04 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:48:04 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3J9m4431880; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:48:04 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:48:03 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 KAA11984; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:48:03 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA26682; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:48:02 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:48:02 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200204190948.KAA26682@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards Cc: adam@irvine.com, svenpran@online.no X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Thu Apr 18 22:36:02 2002 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , > "Adam Beneschan" > Cc: > Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards > Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 23:32:00 +0200 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Precedence: bulk > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > >This is related to a thread that got started on r.g.b. The original > > > >poster had a legitimate question, but got East and West reversed in > > > >the bidding diagram. It therefore looked like North opened 1C, *West* > > > >bid 1D out of turn, then South bid 1H. . . . > > > >Which of the following happens? > > > > > > > >(1) The 1H bid is cancelled without penalty; the TD asks North whether > > > > he wishes to accept the call, and if not, East must pass and South > > > > can then repeat the 1H call. (Or can South then make any call he > > > > chooses?) > > > >(2) The 1H bid is cancelled, but it's UI to North, who must bend over > > > > backward to avoid using this information when deciding whether to > > > > accept the BOOT. > > > >(3) North's options become restricted because of the 1H call. > > > >(4) Despite what I wrote above, we rule that 1H condones West's BOOT > > > > and itself becomes a BOOT. > > > >(5) Something else. > > > > > > #5. W's 1D bid was out of turn. L29 applies. N may opt to continue > > > the auction in accordance with either L29A or L29B. If he elects the > > > latter, E will be required to pass. But until he does so, E is under > > > no such obligation. S's 1H call was not made at a time when E was > > > obligated to pass. L28A does not apply. S has also bid out of turn, > > > subsequent to W's having done so. > > > > > > The TD should give N his option under L29. If he elects to continue > > > under L29A, it is his turn; if he elects to continue under L29B, it is > > > E's. In either case, S's bid is still out of turn -- it may be E's > > > call, and E may be required to pass, but S's call is not "considered to > > > be in rotation", because E was not required to pass when the call > > > occurred -- and must be dealt with before the auction continues. The > > > TD should now offer W the choice of continuing the auction under either > > > L29A or L29B. > > > > If it's ruled that South has bid at East's turn, "dealing with the > > BOOT" is actually pretty much null. If East is required to pass, > > South then must repeat the 1H call (L31A1) and there is no penalty. > > There's actually no point in offering West the choice whether to > > condone South's BOOT, because the result will necessarily be the same > > whether or not West condones the call. At least we all agree that > > South did commit an infraction. > > Unless there is more in this fictious story (yes, it has emerged from a > misprint) than we know from the description I shall vote for: > > 1: The bid out of turn by West is handled under Law 11A, it is not > condoned, but the right to penalize has been forfeited by South. > > 2: Then we have the bid out of turn by South, this is handled under > Law29 and, unless condoned by West, under Law 31B (It was now > partner - North's turn to call), so in that case North will have to pass > for the rest of this auction while East and West may both call without > restrictions. > > I'm afraid we shall not be able to penalize the bid out of turn by West > without making it impossible to obtain a score on that board. > > Sven Isn't it completely obvious from Law 28B that 1H is not an infraction? Indeed isn't L28B all we need for this case? Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 20:03:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JA35j11299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:03:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xgate.npl.co.uk (IDENT:root@[139.143.5.160]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JA30H11295 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:03:00 +1000 (EST) Received: (from root@localhost) by xgate.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3J9pZG06116; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:51:35 +0100 Received: by xgate.npl.co.uk XSMTPD; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:51:35 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by fermat.npl.co.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3J9pZW32209; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:51:35 +0100 Received: by fermat.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:51:35 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA11992; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:51:35 +0100 (BST) Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA28283; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:51:34 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:51:34 +0100 (BST) From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200204190951.KAA28283@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards Cc: adam@irvine.com, svenpran@online.no X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Isn't it completely obvious from Law 28B that 1H is not an infraction? > Indeed isn't L28B all we need for this case? > > Robin > Oops. Now I've had a coffee I realise I misread the original problem. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 20:03:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JA3Oe11311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:03:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JA3IH11307 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:03:18 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1843.bb.online.no [80.212.215.51]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA22277 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:51:52 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004701c1e787$d5737780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:51:52 +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: "Todd Zimnoch" > >After ignoring your "examples" that automatically come under Law27B2 or > >is a theory on non-existent (hypothetical) bidding systems there is nothing > >left that could be applicable as purpose for law27B1(b). > > Will you accept this this example? > > 1H - P - 3C* - P * = Fit showing jump > 2H corrected to 3H - P - 3S - P > 4H - AP > > Remember from the definitions: "However, an agreement as to overall strength > does not make a call a convention." > > After a fit showing jump, bidding game can show a minimum opener while > bidding shy of game can show hand values sufficient to investigate slam. > Given the 2H bid corrected to 3H, 3H is not a slam-interested hand in this > auction. Bidding 4H directly shuts the 3C bidder out of the action, so > opener chooses 3H. In the continuing cue-bidding action, opener denies both > minor aces. This may have caused damage if 5 or more hearts is a reasonable > contract that fails. Yes, this is a reasonable example. But I fail to see why it is not a fair example of "my" interpretation of Law27B1(b): Although both bids being incontrovertibly non-conventional the information conveyed by the 2H bid would be that the opening was on a minimum hand while the 3H bid would indicate significantly extra values. Stopping short of slam *because* of this difference clearly opens for the application of Law27B1(b). East trying for slam over 3H is OK, he discovers the missing aces and settles in 4H. What action would he have taken over 4H (in case of no insufficient bid)? If East has such a strong hand that he seriously would make another slam try after a direct jump to 4H by opener I find it almost incredible that 5H should be set except due to bad "card luck". Maybe it is time to remind you of a parallell: Say that the offender takes a chance after his IB and bid 4H which because of extreme trump distribution between opponents is the only contract that makes (with 11 tricks). Without the irregularity any decent pair will bid 6H, and with a more "normal" distribution of trumps between opponents slam will be made. Correct ruling in such cases is that the irregularity has *not* caused damage to NOS; what did cause damage was the "card luck" (bad or good depending on which way you look at it). Therefore the obtained result shall stand. Another example to a similar effect: A pair holds between them 29 HCP and 9 hearts. everybody in the room ends up in 4H, but the way the cards lie, there is absolutely no way the defence can avoid 4 tricks, and there is no way declarer can make more than 9. Due to some irregularity (bid out of turn or whatever) at one table an enforced pass makes a pair land in 3H which of course makes. Is law23 applicable? No. The damage was not caused by the enforced pass, but by "card luck". There is a difference. 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 Apr 19 20:15:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JAEjL11330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:14:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JAEeH11326 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:14:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1843.bb.online.no [80.212.215.51]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA06014; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:03:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <004d01c1e789$6bd45d60$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: Cc: References: <200204190948.KAA26682@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:03:14 +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: "Robin Barker" > > Unless there is more in this fictious story (yes, it has emerged from a > > misprint) than we know from the description I shall vote for: > > > > 1: The bid out of turn by West is handled under Law 11A, it is not > > condoned, but the right to penalize has been forfeited by South. > > > > 2: Then we have the bid out of turn by South, this is handled under > > Law29 and, unless condoned by West, under Law 31B (It was now > > partner - North's turn to call), so in that case North will have to pass > > for the rest of this auction while East and West may both call without > > restrictions. > > > > I'm afraid we shall not be able to penalize the bid out of turn by West > > without making it impossible to obtain a score on that board. > > > > Sven > > Isn't it completely obvious from Law 28B that 1H is not an infraction? > Indeed isn't L28B all we need for this case? As East has not called (last), and not been required to pass (penalty) by the director, South is not in turn to call and Law28B does not apply. Law28B would apply if North had made another call subsequent to the BOOT by West. Law28B would (probably) also apply if calls had been made by the players in the following order: North - East - West - South. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 20:15:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JAFMC11342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:15:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JAFGH11338 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:15:17 +1000 (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 16yVF5-000JI2-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 11:03:50 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 03:27:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <00e901c1e6a9$13e327c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >On 4/18/02, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>I had one pro opponent who refused to read my CC, insisting that I (in >>effect) read it for him. Such oafishly bad manners should be a Zero >>Tolerance offense. > >You don't need zero tolerance. It's a violation of the proprieties. But >either way, screw him. Call the TD. Since the opponents have a right to ask questions and get replies, which side do you suggest the TD should deal with? As I am sure most people realise, you get far more information from answers to questions. This applies especially in the ACBL where their CCs are not designed to give much information. If a player is rude in the way he refuses to read the CC, that is certainly an offence. But if he asks a question, and the person he asks refuses to answer, that player has [a] committed an offence by deliberately refusing to inform his opponents of his methods and [b] probably committed a ZT offence as well. Is it not a pity that there are still so many people opposed to Full Disclosure? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 21:23:12 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JBMnI11373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:22:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JBMhH11369 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:22:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48569.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.61.185]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3JBB4h02517 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:11:04 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CBFFB86.40807@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:12:06 +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] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> <4c$wHVG93Wv8Ew3l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, this is your best non-answer yet. David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >>David, sorry, we are not in disagreement here, so please don't pick on me. >> >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >>>Herman De Wael writes >>> >>> >>>>David Stevenson wrote: >>>> >>>>If it is not in the Laws that one should be allowed to protect his >>>>partner from the consequences of UI, then it should be. >>>>If you are going to answer all questions concerning asking bids with a >>>>complete enumeration of all the answers that partner is able to give, >>>>then you are free to give UI. >>>> >>>>So that is simply not on. >>>>A reply "asking bid" should be sufficient, and in my book, often is. >>>> >>>> >>> Full disclosure is necessary under L75A. it is also one of the >>>building blocks of the ethical game. >>> > >>Exactly, so you always reply a full 10 minutes' worth ? >>No you don't. >> > > Of course not. You tell him the basics of what a call means, and if > he asks for more, you give him more. > Isn't that exactly what we are both saying. Yes it is. Now please define "basics". I'm saying that "asking for top cards" is basics. You seem to be saying that "RKCB 1430" is basics. My point is that I should be allowed to try and avoid passing UI to partner in my decision as to how much to tell opponents. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 21:29:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JBTO011385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:29:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JBTIH11381 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 21:29:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-48569.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.61.185]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3JBHoh08108 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:17:50 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CBFFD1C.8060804@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:18:52 +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] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> <4c$wHVG93Wv8Ew3l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >> >>But if I reply "40-31 RKCB" to the same question, I feel I have just given >>partner UI. >> > > If you don't you are deliberately withholding information that you > should be giving. > Why ? How are my opponents damaged if I don't tell them (and partner) the answering scheme? I know that they are entitled to the information, and I shall tell them if they ask - but I should be allowed to decide for myself how much information to give out - accepting the TD ruling if I get it wrong. > Remember my worst ever experience of a ruling at the table where a > pair of Dutch cheats said "3D is forcing" as a response to 1H? And I > was expected to realise that that meant that 3D was ***weak*** and > showed a heart fit? And you allowed that? > Yes the TD did - and the way you tell it here makes it clear that that TD made a terribly wrong ruling. Because indeed that was less than sufficient explanation. But you are talking "full" here - I am talking "sufficient". "Full" explanation is impossible - It would cover hours, not minutes. The laws cater for this, in saying that I need not tell things I reasonably expect you to understand. So the question remains - is "asking for top cards" sufficient or not? > Do you really believe that L75A was followed by them telling me 3D was > forcing? > I apparently did at the time - or maybe I ruled that you were not damaged - I don't remember. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 22:00:45 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JC0Rs11407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:00:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JC0LH11403 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:00:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA25687; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:47:37 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA25127; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:48:50 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020419134708.00a6bd20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:54:28 +0200 To: "Sven Pran" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Adam Beneschan" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards Cc: In-Reply-To: <009701c1e720$7bc28580$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200204182057.NAA18185@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:32 18/04/2002 +0200, Sven Pran wrote: >Unless there is more in this fictious story (yes, it has emerged from a >misprint) than we know from the description I shall vote for: > >1: The bid out of turn by West is handled under Law 11A, it is not >condoned, but the right to penalize has been forfeited by South. AG : I would let this depend on the conditions of the contest. If BB are used, I think L11A should be used, if only because it's simple and to teach South, who might heve thought it funny to deepen the mess by continuing the backwards bidding. If there is only oral bidding, South shouldn't be penalized for not having detected that the words "One Diamond" came from an unexpected part of the room. After all, he is not allowed to look at his RHO as he bids. It is quite plausible that he thought, in good faith, that the bid came from his right. He didn't really take action after an infraction, because it was difficult to know there was one. If an opponent revoked, you don't forfeit your rights for playing at your turn after the revoke, because you couldn't know there was one. Best regards, Alain. >2: Then we have the bid out of turn by South, this is handled under >Law29 and, unless condoned by West, under Law 31B (It was now >partner - North's turn to call), so in that case North will have to pass >for the rest of this auction while East and West may both call without >restrictions. > >I'm afraid we shall not be able to penalize the bid out of turn by West >without making it impossible to obtain a score on that 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 22:02:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JC2B211419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:02:12 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JC26H11415 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:02:06 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA17008; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:48:06 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA28993; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:50:41 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020419135523.00a2c080@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:56:19 +0200 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards Cc: adam@irvine.com, svenpran@online.no In-Reply-To: <200204190948.KAA26682@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:48 19/04/2002 +0100, Robin Barker wrote: > > 1: The bid out of turn by West is handled under Law 11A, it is not > > condoned, but the right to penalize has been forfeited by South. > > > > 2: Then we have the bid out of turn by South, this is handled under > > Law29 and, unless condoned by West, under Law 31B (It was now > > partner - North's turn to call), so in that case North will have to pass > > for the rest of this auction while East and West may both call without > > restrictions. > > > > I'm afraid we shall not be able to penalize the bid out of turn by West > > without making it impossible to obtain a score on that board. > > > > Sven > >Isn't it completely obvious from Law 28B that 1H is not an infraction? >Indeed isn't L28B all we need for this case? AG : no, it isn't. East is not compelled to pass. North could have accepted Wes'ts bid, in which case East may bid. Thus L28B doesn't apply. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 22:05:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JC5gf11431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:05:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JC5aH11427 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:05:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id NAA26805; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:53:00 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA02470; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:54:14 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020419135721.00a6da90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:59:52 +0200 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418125621.00b28170@pop.starpower.net> References: <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1vkD7PCT8Ev8Ew1a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@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 13:01 18/04/2002 -0400, Eric Landau wrote: >You have agreed that you overcall in five-card or longer suits; from >practice and experience you know that when one of you overcalls, partner >can safely infer that he is bidding his longest suit and act >accordingly. The auction goes 1H-? You hold AKJx/x/Qxxxx/KQx and choose >to overcall 1S. Psych or deviation? AG : misbid. Double stands out. And deviation. If this happens several times, you will have to adapt your CC and explanations. To make the example perfect, invert the rounded suits. Then many players will opt to overcall 1S, and if your partner has done it before, you know it (mine have and I do). It is not a psyche, because it deviates only by a small amount (strong 4-card suit in lieu of 5-card suit). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 22:12:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JCBqi11463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:11:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JCBhH11458 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:11:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA19091; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:57:46 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA10827; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:00:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020419140101.00a6f5c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:05:59 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Top Player's Lerts In-Reply-To: <004c01c1e6ff$f9d1a6c0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> References: <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> <200204152228.g3FMSNq01015@milkyway.gsfc.nasa.gov> <1vkD7PCT8Ev8Ew1a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004f01c1e5d9$98b75460$4c13e150@dodona> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418125621.00b28170@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 10:37 18/04/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > > You have agreed that you overcall in five-card or longer suits; from > > practice and experience you know that when one of you overcalls, > > partner can safely infer that he is bidding his longest suit and act > > accordingly. The auction goes 1H-? You hold AKJx/x/Qxxxx/KQx and > > choose to overcall 1S. Psych or deviation? > > >Normal practice for many pros playing with a weak client. It finally >dawned on me recently (I'm a bit slow) that a number of pros do not use >the takeout double with weak clients, instead overcalling in a four-card >major, even a weak one. Psych or deviation? Alertable? Permissible? AG : not alertable by Belgian rules, which state : "A simple overcall should not be alerted if it guarantees at least a 4-card suit and at least 7 HCP" ... "A jump overcall should not be alerted if it guarantees at least a strong 5-card suit and opening values" (which means that WJOs shall be alerted) Other countries may have decided otherwise. However, if you overcall frequent 4-card suits, or if you sytematically overcall in the lowest biddable suit even if shorter, or if you prefer a strong 4-carder to a so-so 5-carder, this is a matter of style that fits in several places on the CC. To cut it short, it is a treatment, not a convention. 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 Apr 19 22:23:59 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JCNWV11511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:23:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JCNQH11507 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:23:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id OAA21831; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:09:29 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id OAA23227; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:12:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020419140747.00a44080@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:17:42 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] dealing with UI - again Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, Here is a case from yesterday's tournament, about which I'm not certain what the player should have done. N S 2D* 2NT** 3D*** 4NT ? * Multi ** relay *** North intended to show H and a minimum hand (transfer-like) ; South explained as Spades. The real explanation is "undiscussed" ; NS thought they were playing the same Multi because they had a common partner (YT) and didn't bother to discuss the sequence. If North sees passing 4NT as a way out of the mess, she's wrong ; she should take partner's bid as BW for hearts. If North answers 5D, and South asks for SQ with 5H, North may now pass, I think, because in the "heart" interpretation (eg behind screens), 5H is a signoff. Now, a more intricate situation. South alerts, is asked, turns green, and answer "oops, undiscussed" (which is true). He also scribbles on a paper "I shall take it as spades" and show it to RHO (and possibly LHO). In my idea, he does the best to avoid both MI and UI. The question is : is North allowed to know her partner doesn't know, and pass 4NT for better or worse ? Pro : the explanation was correct, thus no UI Con : North isn't allowed to know that a whell might (just might) have gone loose. This is in itself UI. Your views would be appreciated. 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 Apr 19 22:47:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JCla711575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:47:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JClSH11571 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:47:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d162.iae.nl [212.61.3.162]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id D839321025; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:35:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <005001c1e79e$8b948520$a2033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" , "John (MadDog) Probst" References: <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:29:37 +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 John, Additional information: I asked the graduated player: why the 3e instead of the 5e of K 10 9 5 2? The answer was: it has nothing to do with the 10 9 combination; I just wanted to show partner that I have two higher ranking cards. What do you lead when you have K 9 6 4 2? The answer was: the 6, oh no maybe the 2. My experience in the Netherlands is that players are appealing when there is a deviation from the leads as indicated on the CC. The deviation is only accepted provided that there is a "bridge-reason" to it. Regards, Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 5:18 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? > In article <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes > >Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC) writes > >>On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >>> Ben Schelen writes > >>> >The CC shows: leads are 1e, 3e, 5e and the contract is 4S. > >>> >The lead is C9 and later it appeared that the hand consists of K 10 9 5 2. > >>> >As a consequence declarer now makes 10 instead of 11 tricks. > >>> > >>> You have lost me. > >>> > >>> The CC says they lead 1st, 3rd and 5th, yes? > >>> > >>> He has KT952, so he leads the 3rd, as the CC says? > >>> > >>> What is the problem? > >> > >>The phrase "3rd and 5th" generally means "the 3rd from a 3 or 4 card suit, > >>the 5th from a 5 card or longer suit" here. > >> > >>IMHO, If a pair routinely leads either the 9 or 2 from the holding above > >>and calls it "3rd/5th", they are trying to hide their true agreements. > > > > I agree with your meaning of 3rd and 5th, and the same would apply > >here. > > > > But this pair is not playing 3rd and 5th, which implies nothing about > >honour leads, but 1st, 3rd and 5th, which does. > > > > Perhaps it is a language thing. > > > > Anyway, if 1st, 3rd and 5th does not imply the 9 from KT9xx [what does > >it mean, the king?] then they have false carded which is legal. > > > In my book A/3/5 does not say anything about interior honour leads. > My own card says: A/2/4 K/10/9. This is interpreted (in London) as: > Ace from Ace King empty, 2nd from bad suits, 4th from an honour(s). K > promises 3 honours, 10s and 9s are 0 or two higher. > > 1/3/5 merely states Ace from Ace King, 3rd from honour fourth, bottom > from honour fifth. It says nothing about leads from bad suits and > nothing about intermediate honour leads. It has significant lack of > disclosure. > > I asked at the beginning of the thread for details of the lead style > from interior honour sequences and still haven't been told. If the > information is not available then I'm going to rule against on an MI > basis. Of course I actually believe they've no idea what they're doing, > but I await clarification before ruling on that basis. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Apr 19 22:56:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JCua411613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:56:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JCuSH11609 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:56:29 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3JCj6M01607 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:45:06 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:45 +0100 (BST) 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: <007801c1e76f$e5e598e0$c18d403e@dodona> Grattan wrote: > Regulations that are the subject of some debate on this > channel are in order if they are "not inconsistent" with the Laws > of D.C.B. Their conformance is a matter for interpretation. Now, > isn't that the revolving door by which this discussion came in? To an extent, yes. But I believe that you have made it absolutely clear that the WBF will interpret *any* regulation as "consistent with the laws" in preference to confronting the NBO in question. Given that you do not believe the WBF would win a confrontation with an NBO this is pragmatic, though IMO regrettable, position to adopt. Those of us without positions of authority can afford to have principles and beliefs - those of you in positions of power, like all politicians, cannot (at least not if you want to keep those positions). 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 Apr 19 22:57:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JCvWd11626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:57:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JCvRH11622 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 22:57:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yXmA-0004ne-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:46:06 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020419083741.00b25c10@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 08:46:13 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question In-Reply-To: <009b01c1e723$558d9be0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200204181550.LAA23369@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418165114.00b1eef0@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 05:52 PM 4/18/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > I don't understand how a player who could not have known that he was > > committing an infraction simultaneously "could have known that his > > infraction would be likely to damage the non-offending side". I > > therefore believe that in order to apply L72B1, the TD must determine > > that the offender "could have known" -- a very different thing from > > "did know" -- that he was committing an infraction. > >The way I read L72B1 it opens a door for the director to handle any >irregularity where circumstances are such that it might be part of >a setup by the offender, to treat it as if it were without having to prove >intent. L72B1 does not say "if the offender could have known he was >committing an infraction". L72B1 applies once it is possible, when an >infraction has been committed that the offender "could have known >that his infraction would be likely to damage ....". Exactly. But how can he know that "his infraction would be likely to lead to damage" if he doesn't know that "his infraction" exists? >In order to apply L72B1 the director must be convinced that an >infraction (intentional or inadvertent makes no difference) actually >took place and that it is possible that the offender could have known >this infraction might ("would be likely to") cause damage to opponents. >As already said, he does not need to prove intent, nor does he need >to prove probability. > > > That means reading "could have known" in the sense of "might have > > known", not in the sense of "would have known under different > > circumstances which did not actually occur". I argue for that reading > > on the grounds that the alternative would make every infraction ever > > committed to the detriment of one's opponents' score subject to > redress > > under L72B1, and that that was patently not the intent of L72B1. > >"different circumstances" as a condition has no place with L72B1. > > > I therefore read L23 as saying that the provisions of L72B1 also > apply, > > regardless of whether or not the offender could have known that he was > > committing an infraction, when the penalty for the infraction "would > > compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn", if the > > offender "could have known that *the enforced pass* [emphasis mine] > > would be likely to damage the non-offending side". > > > > IOW, I argue that "the infraction" and "the enforced pass" are two > > different things, that L72B1 deals (directly) with damage from the > > former while L23 deals (additionally) with damage from the latter, and > > that this means that there is a class of actions to which the redress > > provisions of L72B1 apply only because L23 says they do. > >"could have known he was committing an infraction" is completely >irrelevant. As I read the above, Sven and I are actually in agreement. I use the phrase "could have known he was committing an infraction"; Sven uses the phrase "might be part of a setup by the offender". It sounds to me like we're saying the same thing. 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 Apr 19 23:40:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JDdsS11682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:39:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JDdkH11677 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:39:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yYR7-0004Nx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:28:26 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020419085934.00b24670@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:28:35 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020418082235.00aa72e0@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415113704.00aa03b0@pop.starpower.net> <200204162225.PAA21211@mailhub.irvine.com> <4.3.2.7.0.20020418082235.00aa72e0@pop.starpower.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:34 PM 4/18/02, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > Are you talking about Laws, or rules? Sure, the WBF provides the >Laws. But, as with all sports and mindsports, more local organisations >provide further rules, such as general regulations, Conditions of >Contest or whatever. I'm talking about laws, but the context is that laws constrain rules, which must be "not in conflict with [the] laws" [L80F). The debate in the thread is about rules that, depending on which side you're on, either violate this constraint or marginally satisfy it by means of what is consensually conceded to be a loophole in the laws. > An example has been given about discrimination by race. Now, the Law >book could have a Law saying we must not discriminate. Alternatively >individual countries could provide a regulation. > > Another alternative is that it is not illegal. Of course, the Laws on >any particular country might make it illegal. But if the WBFLC does not >make it illegal via its Law book [or some other over-riding WBF >regulation] then it is not unreasonable for individual countries to >either make it illegal, or not. Some read the situation as analogous to something like the following: Imagine that the WBF issued a new lawbook that had a rule saying, "No person may be refused admission to any event run by any member organization based on race." Imagine that some NCBO continued to refuse entry to blacks, arguing that under the laws of their country, blacks are legally not "persons". The salient question is whether the WBF would take disciplinary action, or would issue an "interpretation" that allowed the NCBO to continue its practices on the grounds that local organizations know better than the WBF what's best for their members. IOW, would the WBF find a reason to treat banning blacks differently from the precedent set by the way they treat banning psychs? > To say that member countries have ceded the formation of rules to the >WBF is just not true. The WBF provides over-riding Laws, yes, but there >are many rules provided by other levels of the game. The member countries have ceded to the WBF the right to make laws that constrain the rules the member countries are allowed to make, and have agreed to abide by those constraints. The WBF doesn't make local rules, but they do make laws that are supposed to limit the local rules that can be made by local authorities. When a local authority makes a rule that apparently violates such a constraint, it is up to the WBF to choose between enforcing a strict interpretation of the constraining law or finding an interpretation, even if rather far-fetched, that will allow the rule to stand. The WBF has made it clear that it prefers the latter, and it has good reasons for doing so; AFAICT they have never chosen the former. But others have made it clear that there are also good reasons for taking the stricter approach, and are trying to convince the WBF to reconsider which side of the balance carries the greater weight. 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 Apr 19 23:57:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JDv5E11703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:57:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JDv0H11699 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:57:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yYho-0007LR-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:45:40 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020419093522.00b1f840@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 09:45:46 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? In-Reply-To: References: <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <00db01c1e6a3$3392c900$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:40 PM 4/18/02, David wrote: >Marvin L. French writes > > >But, during the auction, not calls that haven't been made yet. > > How you can say this when you are advocating giving partial answers to >questions of calls made? I'd wonder how you could say this under any circumstances whatsoever. *Everything* you know about your agreements must be fully and freely disclosed in reply to a request for the information. An opponent may legally request any information whatsoever. I submit that if LHO deals and passes and you then ask him what system he's playing, he can't refuse to tell you on the grounds that you're asking about "calls that haven't been made yet." The only way a question about opponents' agreements can be illegal, regardless of its subject, is if it is asked for some purpose other than getting the answer; possibilities include harassment, passing UI to partner, attempting to entrap the opponents into giving MI, etc. If you believe that's what's going on, the correct response still isn't, "I refuse to answer that question;" it is "Director, please!" 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 Apr 20 00:08:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JE7lo11720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:07:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JE7gH11716 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:07:42 +1000 (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 16yYs5-0001fN-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:56:20 +0000 Message-ID: <+rdBq1BLJAw8Ewt8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:40:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Bidding backwards References: <200204190948.KAA26682@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200204190948.KAA26682@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 >> From: "Adam Beneschan" >> > > >This is related to a thread that got started on r.g.b. The original >> > > >poster had a legitimate question, but got East and West reversed in >> > > >the bidding diagram. It therefore looked like North opened 1C, *West* >> > > >bid 1D out of turn, then South bid 1H. . . . >> > > >Which of the following happens? >> > > > >> > > >(1) The 1H bid is cancelled without penalty; the TD asks North whether >> > > > he wishes to accept the call, and if not, East must pass and South >> > > > can then repeat the 1H call. (Or can South then make any call he >> > > > chooses?) >> > > >(2) The 1H bid is cancelled, but it's UI to North, who must bend over >> > > > backward to avoid using this information when deciding whether to >> > > > accept the BOOT. >> > > >(3) North's options become restricted because of the 1H call. >> > > >(4) Despite what I wrote above, we rule that 1H condones West's BOOT >> > > > and itself becomes a BOOT. >> > > >(5) Something else. >> > > >> > > #5. W's 1D bid was out of turn. L29 applies. N may opt to continue >> > > the auction in accordance with either L29A or L29B. If he elects the >> > > latter, E will be required to pass. But until he does so, E is under >> > > no such obligation. S's 1H call was not made at a time when E was >> > > obligated to pass. L28A does not apply. S has also bid out of turn, >> > > subsequent to W's having done so. >> > > >> > > The TD should give N his option under L29. If he elects to continue >> > > under L29A, it is his turn; if he elects to continue under L29B, it is >> > > E's. In either case, S's bid is still out of turn -- it may be E's >> > > call, and E may be required to pass, but S's call is not "considered to >> > > be in rotation", because E was not required to pass when the call >> > > occurred -- and must be dealt with before the auction continues. The >> > > TD should now offer W the choice of continuing the auction under either >> > > L29A or L29B. >> > >> > If it's ruled that South has bid at East's turn, "dealing with the >> > BOOT" is actually pretty much null. If East is required to pass, >> > South then must repeat the 1H call (L31A1) and there is no penalty. >> > There's actually no point in offering West the choice whether to >> > condone South's BOOT, because the result will necessarily be the same >> > whether or not West condones the call. At least we all agree that >> > South did commit an infraction. >> >> Unless there is more in this fictious story (yes, it has emerged from a >> misprint) than we know from the description I shall vote for: >> >> 1: The bid out of turn by West is handled under Law 11A, it is not >> condoned, but the right to penalize has been forfeited by South. >> >> 2: Then we have the bid out of turn by South, this is handled under >> Law29 and, unless condoned by West, under Law 31B (It was now >> partner - North's turn to call), so in that case North will have to pass >> for the rest of this auction while East and West may both call without >> restrictions. >> >> I'm afraid we shall not be able to penalize the bid out of turn by West >> without making it impossible to obtain a score on that board. >Isn't it completely obvious from Law 28B that 1H is not an infraction? >Indeed isn't L28B all we need for this case? It was not the turn of the 1H bidder so L28B does not apply. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 20 00:24:55 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JEOg111737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:24:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JEObH11733 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:24:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16yZ8W-000541-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:13:16 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020419100825.00b20d50@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:13:25 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question In-Reply-To: <004701c1e787$d5737780$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 05:51 AM 4/19/02, Sven wrote: >Say that the offender takes a chance after his IB and bid 4H which because >of extreme trump distribution between opponents is the only contract that >makes (with 11 tricks). > >Without the irregularity any decent pair will bid 6H, and with a more >"normal" >distribution of trumps between opponents slam will be made. > >Correct ruling in such cases is that the irregularity has *not* caused >damage >to NOS; what did cause damage was the "card luck" (bad or good depending >on which way you look at it). Therefore the obtained result shall stand. I've been playing bridge for over 40 years and have never heard of any such thing. Nor can I find any law, rule, or interpretation that could possibly justify it. Damage subsequent to an infraction must be determined by the TD/AC to be either consequent to the infraction, in which case it is redressed, or consequent to the actions of the NOS subsequent to the infraction, in which case it is not. "Card luck" has nothing to do with it. Or am I wrong? Is this not a consensual part of bridge jurisprudence? 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 Apr 20 02:04:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JG3lp11812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 02:03:47 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JG3fH11808 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 02:03:42 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3087.bb.online.no [80.212.220.15]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA27178 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:52:15 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <011b01c1e7ba$2d8af7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020419100825.00b20d50@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:52:15 +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: "Eric Landau" > >Correct ruling in such cases is that the irregularity has *not* > >caused damage to NOS; what did cause damage was the > >"card luck" (bad or good depending on which way you look > >at it). Therefore the obtained result shall stand. > > I've been playing bridge for over 40 years and have never heard > of any such thing. Nor can I find any law, rule, or interpretation > that could possibly justify it. > > Damage subsequent to an infraction must be determined by the > TD/AC to be either consequent to the infraction, in which case > it is redressed, or consequent to the actions of the NOS subsequent > to the infraction, in which case it is not. "Card luck" has nothing > to do with it. > Or am I wrong? Is this not a consensual part of bridge jurisprudence? The primary applicable law is 12A1 which applies on damage caused by an infraction for which the laws do not provide indemnity. To illustrate the "problem" consider a case which could actually have happened in our club many years ago, when North still was responsible for among other things that the correct boards are played in each round (Described here as if it really did happen). Today this responsibility lies with a contestant (if any) is remaining at a table throughout a session (L7D), so the case could still be equally relevant: One board was such that it is "impossible" not to end in a contract of 4H in North, and it is impossible not to make exactly 9 tricks. The North-South pair in question was of a rather low class and didn't manage to bid more than 3H which they of course just made for a top score. The only problem was that they had taken the wrong board to be played, so they obtained this top score against a pair not destined for that board against them. Is this "unlucky" pair entitled to an adjustment because of the irregularity in which they were not at fault themselves, and for which they received a clear bottom instead of the average they would have received had the irregularity not occurred? (They would have played the board against a pair of "normal" class). My interpretation of the laws is that the connection between the irregularity and the damage here was far too remote to justify an adjustment. The "damage" was simply a result of the peculiarities on that board (hard "card luck") rather than a result of the infraction. If you have access to the commentary of the 1987 laws you may find a corroborating comment in 23.5 (pages 81&83), part of which reads: South holding 11 high card points opposite a partner opening 1NT with a full 16HCP is barred by an infraction. All pairs are bidding 3NT but North can only make 8 tricks. Do not adjust the score for this pair who had to play 1NT. North could not have known that it was favourable to bar partner, it just turned out that way. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 20 02:26:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JGPuv11830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 02:25:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JGPoH11826 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 02:25:51 +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 g3JGEXx07736 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:14:33 +0100 Message-ID: <74S5ShAREEw8EwMT@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:08:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Kooijman, A. writes > >> > The whole argument is whether there is an *additional* purpose of >> > L27B1b, as Sven and a few others wish there to be. >> > > > >sven: > > > >> Please don't tell me that I argue for an *additional* purpose, I argue >> that it is *the* purpose because no other purpose has so far been >> demonstrated. >> I'm finally convinced I can use 27B1b. I apologise for the red herring of 72B1. Tim WM has tried to convince me that partner must have a reason for bidding 2H, to allow me to bid again, but I think that that in itself is UI. By making that allowance the auction does not proceed "normally". The only problem I have is that 27B1b says "if the TD *judges* ... " whereas 72B1 uses the word "... *deems*...". Judges implies culpability, deems implies no measure of culpability. I live with that. I judge they're a pair of cheating b*****ds. No problem. > > >Good argument to let me quit this discussion . Ignoring all what is said is >the best way to uphold your own opinion. > >ton >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Apr 20 02:30:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JGUcW11842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 02:30:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JGUWH11838 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 02:30:33 +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 g3JGJGx07765 for ; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:19:16 +0100 Message-ID: <04h6itAdIEw8EwM5@asimere.com> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:13:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005001c1e79e$8b948520$a2033dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <005001c1e79e$8b948520$a2033dd4@b0e7g1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <005001c1e79e$8b948520$a2033dd4@b0e7g1>, Ben Schelen writes >John, > >Additional information: >I asked the graduated player: why the 3e instead of the 5e of K 10 9 5 2? >The answer was: it has nothing to do with the 10 9 combination; I just >wanted to show partner that I have two higher ranking cards. >What do you lead when you have K 9 6 4 2? The answer was: the 6, oh no maybe >the 2. > In that case I adjust. They have an implied and undisclosed agreement about lower honour leads IMO. 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 Sat Apr 20 02:37:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JGbVN11855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 02:37:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JGbPH11851 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 02:37:26 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3JGQ4W10031 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:26:04 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:26 +0100 (BST) 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: <4.3.2.7.0.20020419085934.00b24670@127.0.0.1> Eric wrote: > IOW, would the WBF find a reason to treat banning blacks differently > from the precedent set by the way they treat banning psychs? Of course not. The NBO would not need to ban blacks, they could write a regulation under 40D that only licensed conventions to be used by non-blacks (or indeed to license a set of conventions compulsory for use by blacks that always resulted in the contract being 7NT). The WBF has, we are told, already conceded the right for an NBO to do anything they want if it is linked, on any pretext, to 40D. 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 Apr 20 04:24:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JIOF711945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:24:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3JIO2H11932 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:24:03 +1000 (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 16ycsB-000A3X-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:12:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:19:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> <4c$wHVG93Wv8Ew3l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> <3CBFFD1C.8060804@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CBFFD1C.8060804@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> If you don't you are deliberately withholding information that you >> should be giving. >Why ? How are my opponents damaged if I don't tell them (and partner) >the answering scheme? I do not know off hand, but that is no excuse for aplayer not disclosing. >I know that they are entitled to the information, and I shall tell >them if they ask - but I should be allowed to decide for myself how >much information to give out - accepting the TD ruling if I get it wrong. No, the Laws do not permit you to ignore the Laws of the game, and cheerfully accept a penalty - L72B2 is very specific on that. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 20 04:24:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JIOFw11943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:24:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3JIO2H11931 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:24:03 +1000 (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 16ycsB-000A3W-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:12:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:17:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> <4c$wHVG93Wv8Ew3l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> <3CBFFB86.40807@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3CBFFB86.40807@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael writes >David, this is your best non-answer yet. > >David Stevenson wrote: >> Of course not. You tell him the basics of what a call means, and if >> he asks for more, you give him more. >Isn't that exactly what we are both saying. >Yes it is. >Now please define "basics". >I'm saying that "asking for top cards" is basics. >You seem to be saying that "RKCB 1430" is basics. >My point is that I should be allowed to try and avoid passing UI to >partner in my decision as to how much to tell opponents. Passing UI to pd is unfortunate, but it is not illegal. Avoiding full disclosure is illegal, being against L75A and other Laws. There seems some sort of idea that you can avoid telling people what sort of ask a player makes, and answering that it is an ask is sufficient: it is not. For example, if the bidding goes 1NT from me, 2C from partner, to tell opponents it asks for further information is not an acceptable answer when the true answer is that it is 5-card Stayman. L75A makes partnership understandings fully and freely available to opponents. If a player bids 4NT then L75A means a player has no right to hide its meaning from opponents - and Blackwood is not the same as Roman Blackwood. There is nothing in L75A to say that full disclosure is unnecessary if it gives UI to pd. In fact, all answers to questions give UI to pd - that's tough. No player has a right to avoid full disclosure and quote UI concerns as a reason to do so. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 20 04:24:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JIOFY11944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:24:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3JIO3H11933 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 04:24:04 +1000 (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 16ycsB-000A3V-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:12:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:32:50 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <007801c1e76f$e5e598e0$c18d403e@dodona> >Grattan wrote: >> Regulations that are the subject of some debate on this >> channel are in order if they are "not inconsistent" with the Laws >> of D.C.B. Their conformance is a matter for interpretation. Now, >> isn't that the revolving door by which this discussion came in? > >To an extent, yes. But I believe that you have made it absolutely clear >that the WBF will interpret *any* regulation as "consistent with the laws" >in preference to confronting the NBO in question. How do you know that? sure, you and others have a view about certain specific Laws and regs. But how do you know it applies to any reg - what evidence have you got for this? I do not believe it, myself. I do not think the WBF will accept an NBO that wishes to call it bridge and play with 44 cards. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 20 06:15:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JKEaG12008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 06:14:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3JKEVH12004 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 06:14:31 +1000 (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 16yeb2-0003gf-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:03:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:33:09 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <5ckw3jGR7Wv8Ew33@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005001c1e79e$8b948520$a2033dd4@b0e7g1> <04h6itAdIEw8EwM5@asimere.com> In-Reply-To: <04h6itAdIEw8EwM5@asimere.com> 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 <005001c1e79e$8b948520$a2033dd4@b0e7g1>, Ben Schelen > writes >>John, >> >>Additional information: >>I asked the graduated player: why the 3e instead of the 5e of K 10 9 5 2? >>The answer was: it has nothing to do with the 10 9 combination; I just >>wanted to show partner that I have two higher ranking cards. >>What do you lead when you have K 9 6 4 2? The answer was: the 6, oh no maybe >>the 2. >> >In that case I adjust. In which case I do not adjust. >They have an implied and undisclosed agreement about lower honour leads >IMO. They have fully disclosed their agreement which seems to be to lead the 1st, 3rd or 5th card. That is their agreement: that is what they do: that is what they did. WTP? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 20 06:53:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JKr1P12027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 06:53:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f92.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JKqvH12023 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 06:52:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:41:31 -0700 Received: from 172.159.174.71 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:41:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.159.174.71] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 13:41:31 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2002 20:41:31.0584 (UTC) FILETIME=[96732C00:01C1E7E2] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > They have fully disclosed their agreement which seems to be to lead >the 1st, 3rd or 5th card. That is their agreement: that is what they >do: that is what they did. WTP? The problem is that there's additional information that helps them decide whether to lead 1st, 3rd, or 5th. Have you determined that this information need not be disclosed? -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 Sat Apr 20 09:16:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3JNEpI12166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:14:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3JNEkH12162 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:14:46 +1000 (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 16yhPL-0008MD-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:03:21 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 23:13:02 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Nanki Poo's official birthday MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What with vet visits and everything, we seem to have overlooked Nanki Poo's birthday - shock! horror! We have decided that, for this year only, Nanki Poo will have an official birthday on the 8th of May. emails to please. It is, of course, his first birthday as an only cat. I have suggested to Liz that we should get him a kitten as a birthday present! Pictures of Nanki Poo [and Quango RB and Sophie] may be seen at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo: SI Bp+W B 9 Y L+ W+ C+ I T+ A- E H++ V- F Q B+ PA+ PL+ SC For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 20 22:15:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3KCEKY12472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:14:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3KCEEH12468 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:14:15 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47371.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.11]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3KC2kh16733 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:02:46 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CC15926.7010509@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:03:50 +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] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> <4c$wHVG93Wv8Ew3l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> <3CBFFB86.40807@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Passing UI to pd is unfortunate, but it is not illegal. Avoiding full > disclosure is illegal, being against L75A and other Laws. > I know all that. > There seems some sort of idea that you can avoid telling people what > sort of ask a player makes, and answering that it is an ask is > sufficient: it is not. > You have missed my point. > For example, if the bidding goes 1NT from me, 2C from partner, to tell > opponents it asks for further information is not an acceptable answer > when the true answer is that it is 5-card Stayman. > I know that - but are opponents really interested in knowing what is asked ? I doubt it. So while technically it is insufficient, in practice it is all they want to know. And besides, they are bound to realize that the answer is incomplete, and they have the right to inquire further. > L75A makes partnership understandings fully and freely available to > opponents. If a player bids 4NT then L75A means a player has no right > to hide its meaning from opponents - and Blackwood is not the same as > Roman Blackwood. There is nothing in L75A to say that full disclosure > is unnecessary if it gives UI to pd. In fact, all answers to questions > give UI to pd - that's tough. > Yes, and telling opponents more than they want to know, while giving UI to partner is not tough, it's downright cheating. > No player has a right to avoid full disclosure and quote UI concerns > as a reason to do so. > That is where we part company. Don't get me wrong. If the insufficient info causes damage, I'll be the first to rule against them, and avoiding giving UI is NOT a goodfd reason, I agree. But I am saying that these incomplete answers will not cause damage, and that telling more is a worse crime than a possible lack of info. You're still talking theory here, David, and I know the theory. I'm talking about the real world. Where each and every answer is a piece of incomplete information. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 20 22:33:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3KCWnd12485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:32:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3KCWhH12481 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:32:44 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47371.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.11]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.16) with ESMTP id g3KCLHh05432 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:21:17 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CC15D7D.6060601@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:22:21 +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] What should be included in "full explanation"? References: <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020404082905.00ab9c90@pop.starpower.net> <003501c1dc06$1bbd7480$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <4.3.2.7.0.20020415081613.00b0b660@pop.starpower.net> <4.3.2.7.0.20020416082130.00b0b410@pop.starpower.net> <002901c1e58f$b95194a0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> <3CBD5280.2030501@village.uunet.be> <4c$wHVG93Wv8Ew3l@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3CBE8B96.3060306@village.uunet.be> <3CBFFD1C.8060804@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Come off it David, David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >>David Stevenson wrote: >> > >>> If you don't you are deliberately withholding information that you >>>should be giving. >>> > >>Why ? How are my opponents damaged if I don't tell them (and partner) >>the answering scheme? >> > > I do not know off hand, but that is no excuse for aplayer not > disclosing. > Yes it is. "4NT". "you do remember, partner, that we changed to 1430 last month?" "yes of course I do". Would you tolerate that ? That is precisely what you are saying. > >>I know that they are entitled to the information, and I shall tell >>them if they ask - but I should be allowed to decide for myself how >>much information to give out - accepting the TD ruling if I get it wrong. >> > > No, the Laws do not permit you to ignore the Laws of the game, and > cheerfully accept a penalty - L72B2 is very specific 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 Sun Apr 21 00:17:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3KEHOf12534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:17:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3KEHIH12530 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:17:18 +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 g3KE5rM23600 for ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:05:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:01:52 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws To: Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <002901c1e6de$35ef7be0$e85f003e@mycomputer> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/18/02, Israel Erdnbaum wrote: >I hope that by "they" don't understand 'you are talking about well >ver 90 % and if you are talking about people playing ,recreational >duplicate pairs match pointed tournaments' you are talking about 99%. I'm afraid I don't remember the context of this. >So wouldn't it be a good idea for the WBF to publish a special >edition of Laws written so that their TD could read and even they* >would understand when the TD reads it to them. I don't think there should be a "special edition", I think the laws ought to be written in such a way as to be clear to any reader, not written in such a way as to allow a TD or committee or NCBO (or "bridge lawyer") to find a way to do whatever he/they want. >I think I finally succeeded to write in plain text does it make a >difference to you. Looks like plain text to me. :-) I have a pretty smart mail client, called Mailsmith. Sorry, it's a Mac program. :-) It recognizes HTML in mail, and puts it in a separate enclosure, and puts a note at the top of the displayed text telling me of the html. If the sender's client is smart enough to include the text of the message in a second mime part (mime is a standard for multiple-part mail in different formats) then Mailsmith will display the text, as if there were no html. If the sending client doesn't do that, though, Mailsmith basically just tells me there's an html attachment - which I rarely bother to read. So in that sense it makes a difference, because html in mail will likely cause me not to get any message the sender was trying to impart. Sorry for being so long-winded; I just wanted to explain fully. ;-) >I addressed it to you but should you like to answer through BLML I"ll >be much obliged Done. 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 21 09:07:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3KN6oE12868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:06:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3KN6gH12861 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:06:42 +1000 (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 16z3lE-0000x9-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:55:18 +0000 Message-ID: <1AmzQvBlELw8Ew$u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 01:07:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] The Laws in Dutch MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A few weeks ago there were a couple of posts about the Laws in Dutch, and why they were not available on the web. I have been having a correspondence with the NBB, and they have agreed to put the Laws in Dutch on their website, and then make them available to me if I want to copy them, link to them and so forth. They were going to be put up in "a couple of weeks" but that time is past! Still, I expect they will go up fairly soon. Just recently I have discovered there is a Dutch version, with some notes, at http://www.xs4all.nl/~woek/spelregels/d1.htm I have no idea how 'official' this version is. Until the official version on the NBB site appears I have set a link from my Lawspage, and will update it when the NBB version appears. Incidentally, I have links to English, American, European, French, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Italian, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch versions, plus the English and American rubber versions. Are there any versions on the web that I have missed? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 21 09:07:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3KN6o312869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:06:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3KN6fH12860 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 09:06:42 +1000 (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 16z3lE-0000x7-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 22:55:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:46:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >>From: David Stevenson >> They have fully disclosed their agreement which seems to be to lead >>the 1st, 3rd or 5th card. That is their agreement: that is what they >>do: that is what they did. WTP? > > The problem is that there's additional information that helps them >decide whether to lead 1st, 3rd, or 5th. Have you determined that this >information need not be disclosed? There are two points I would make. First, their description, as told to us, suggests they had not really got solid agreements as to which one to lead. Second, if you actually believe they are playing 1st, 3rd and 5th [and John's objection, for example, seems to be lack of belief rather than anything] then you can either ask further or assume: if you assume then surely the 9 from KT962 is far more likely than the K or the 2? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 21 11:11:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3L1AgK13101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:10:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3L1AbH13097 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:10:37 +1000 (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 16z5h0-0006Es-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:59:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:18:17 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] EBU Appeals 2001 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g3L1AdH13098 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The ENGLISH BRIDGE UNION presents all the appeals from its SUMMER MEETING 2001 SPRING FOURSOMES 2001 CROCKFORD’S FINAL 2001 This is in a booklet in PDF format available from http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_publications.asp You need Adobe Acrobat 4.0 to read this booklet but the method of getting hold of this free software is given at the same location. On behalf of the EBU, the editor, David Stevenson, would like to thank the following for donating their time to provide a Commentary: Laurie Kelso of Melbourne, Australia Herman De Wael of Antwerpen, Belgium Matthias Berghaus of Bochum, Germany Fearghal O'Boyle of Sligo, Ireland Ron Johnson of Ottawa, Canada All of the commentators are members of BLML. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 22 01:31:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3LFUVp13437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:30:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3LFUNH13429 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:30:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.26.78] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16zJ6r-000BI5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:18:38 +0100 Message-ID: <003201c1e948$03567780$4e1ae150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:18:51 +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'" ; Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 8:40 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > I tried to explain the changes made in 27 before. > No reference to L16 before '97. If you had paid your > penalty you could use information from withdrawn calls. ~~~ +=+ Good day, The 1975 Laws introduced the power, I think for the first time, for the Director to judge that, even when substituted by the lowest legal bid in the same denomination, the first bid had conveyed such substantial information that the result should not be allowed to stand. This power was continued in the 1987 Laws (and separated out into the separate subclause 27B1(b).) Kaplan's illustration in 1987, approved by the WBFLC, of a case where this could apply, was the case when the IB had shown an opening hand. The Director is given this same power in the 1997 Laws and no fresh advice was given, that I recall or find in my papers, by the WBFLC. So I believe the 1987 advice remains good. However, it should be noted that what the Law provides is that the *Director* may *judge* the matter in his discretion; the Law itself does not specify any circumstances in which he must rule it to be so. Reading the text of Law 27B1(a) it appears to say that Law 16C2 is not applied in this situation but nevertheless that Law 27B1(b) may apply. +=+ ~~~ In my country we followed the formal route: penalty paid, no UI. > +=+ It is not clear to me how Dutch Directors use the power given to them by 27B1(b). It clearly exists and is there for them to use in some way. But I see no reason why, in Holland, the Dutch should not do as the Dutch think fit - the EBL, the ACBL, and other NBOs give guidance on how to use the power - so why not The Netherlands? As to whether such guidance should be said to have the force of law, I would doubt, no matter who is giving it; the Laws put the judgement unequivocally into the hands of the Director on each occasion, and it is the appeals committee that is responsible for oversight of the Director's exercise of his power of judgement. What I would say is that the right for the Director to judge that 27B1(b) applies is there, worldwide, for him to use and the Law places no restraint upon his use of it. ~ 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 Apr 22 01:31:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3LFUUN13436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:30:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3LFUMH13427 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:30:22 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.26.78] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16zJ6p-000BI5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:18:36 +0100 Message-ID: <003101c1e948$0220b6a0$4e1ae150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:04:43 +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: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > In-Reply-To: <200204162225.PAA21211@mailhub.irvine.com> > Adam asked: > > > > >> +=+ 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 line of thought leads to the discovery that all sponsoring organizations are regulating for their own tournaments, and with wide differences amongst them. Those differences are inspired, we must assume, by the will of the constituency that an organization represents. If the Dutch rule one way and some other NBO another, unless there is agreed to be a violation of some Law, each of them has its right to do so. Sponsoring organizations that exercise the discretions given them under the Laws should not seek to suggest that their preferred ways alone are 'right'. +=+ ~~~ > > Unfortunately, Tim didn't give specifics here, so I don't know > > what evidence he's talking about. I'm not even sure what > > would constitute "evidence that they can't be trusted". > > For the record I mean "Cannot be trusted to act within the > words and spirit of the international laws" not "cannot be > trusted to act on the desires of the majority of their members" > - more on that later. > +=+ 1.The actions of the Council of an NBO, duly elected by its members, must be taken to express and record the desires of the majority. 2. Does Tim claim to define 'the words and spirit of the international laws', arrogating to himself the ability and the right to redefine the authoritative interpretations just because he does not like them? He prattles on with his idiosyncratic opinions, but to what end? .................................................................... ............ "The law is established which no passion can disturb, 'Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger, 'Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible. " [Algernon Sidney] ~ 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 Apr 22 02:05:46 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3LG5Wx13466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 02:05:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3LG5QH13462 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 02:05:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0468.bb.online.no [80.212.209.212]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA11320 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:53:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001101c1e94c$be935f00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <003201c1e948$03567780$4e1ae150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:53:55 +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" > From: "Kooijman, A." > > I tried to explain the changes made in 27 before. > > No reference to L16 before '97. If you had paid your > > penalty you could use information from withdrawn calls. > ~~~ > +=+ Good day, > The 1975 Laws introduced the power, I think for the first > time, for the Director to judge that, even when substituted by the > lowest legal bid in the same denomination, the first bid had > conveyed such substantial information that the result should > not be allowed to stand. This power was continued in the 1987 > Laws (and separated out into the separate subclause 27B1(b).) > Kaplan's illustration in 1987, approved by the WBFLC, of a case > where this could apply, was the case when the IB had shown an > opening hand. > The Director is given this same power in the 1997 Laws > and no fresh advice was given, that I recall or find in my papers, > by the WBFLC. So I believe the 1987 advice remains good. > However, it should be noted that what the Law provides is that > the *Director* may *judge* the matter in his discretion; the Law > itself does not specify any circumstances in which he must rule > it to be so. Reading the text of Law 27B1(a) it appears to say > that Law 16C2 is not applied in this situation but nevertheless > that Law 27B1(b) may apply. +=+ > ~~~ This is all very well, and as far as can understand exactly how I understand Law27B. However, as the introduction in 1997 of a clause in Law27B1(a) that Law16C2 does not apply seems repeatedly to be brought into this thread, I think it is only fair to again call attention to the fact that L16C2 was itself changed in 1997: FROM: information from retracted actions is *AI* for offenders after paying the penalty TO: Information from retracted actions is *UI* for offenders even after paying the penalty. So this change to Law 27B1(a) in 1997 can only have had one purpose: To make it clear that the change in L16C2 itself was not applicable to L27B1. But as Grattan points out: The same condition on damaging information from the IB applies as much after 1997 as before, there was no change in L27B1 altering this. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 22 03:14:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3LHDkQ13557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:13:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3LHDfH13553 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:13:41 +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 NAA25147 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:02:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA28358 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:02:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:02:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204211702.NAA28358@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > What I > would say is that the right for the Director to judge that 27B1(b) > applies is there, worldwide, for him to use and the Law places > no restraint upon his use of it. ~ G ~ +=+ No argument with that! However, there is still the matter of how to adjust, should the Director decide to do so. L12C2 would seem to place constraints on how that is done. The key question is what constitutes the "irregularity" for purposes of L12C2. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 22 03:30:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3LHUZW13573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:30:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3LHUTH13569 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 03:30:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-108-198-193.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.108.198.193]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g3LHJ4kK024935 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:19:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:19:04 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <003101c1e948$0220b6a0$4e1ae150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003101c1e948$0220b6a0$4e1ae150@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 Sun, 21 Apr 2002 16:04:43 +0100, Grattan wrote: >+=+ 1.The actions of the Council of an NBO, duly elected by >its members, must be taken to express and record the >desires of the majority. If and only if you have an election to decide on each substantive point as it comes up, which is a touch impractical, to say the least. Otherwise, the actions of the Council of an NBO on a particular question can only be taken as expressing and recording the desires of the majority *of the members of that Council*, who may well have been elected at a time when the question on which they have expressed that opinion had not even arisen. Any group that insists otherwise is simply deluding themselves, even if they write it into their laws. They might as well legislate that black is white, or that the moon is made out of green cheese. The council members in question may well feel that they are representing the views of the majority of the electorate that voted for them, and in many cases a referendum might even show that to be true, but until you hold the referendum, that's only their opinion. No, I'm not offering a better system (well, not until all the members of a given organisation have an internet connection) but as someone who has always found himself voting on the basis of the lesser of two evils, I take strong exception to the idea that because I vote for somebody, they then "express my desires" throughout their term of office. Anybody who holds that view needs a sharp dose of reality, IMHO. 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 Mon Apr 22 05:11:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3LJAoc13708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 05:10:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3LJAiH13704 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 05:10:45 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0468.bb.online.no [80.212.209.212]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA15100 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:59:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002101c1e966$a1118320$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204211702.NAA28358@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:59:13 +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 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: "Grattan Endicott" > > What I > > would say is that the right for the Director to judge that 27B1(b) > > applies is there, worldwide, for him to use and the Law places > > no restraint upon his use of it. ~ G ~ +=+ > > No argument with that! > > However, there is still the matter of how to adjust, should the Director > decide to do so. L12C2 would seem to place constraints on how that is > done. The key question is what constitutes the "irregularity" for > purposes of L12C2. Until this last year I haven't heard of any problem with that: The fact that with no insufficient bid offending side would easily have reached a reasonable contract was considered irrelevant. If the offender wanted to avoid forcing his partner to pass for the rest of the auction he would have to select the only available replacement bid according to L27B1(a), and that bid was the only one offender's partner should "know" from the offender in that round. Damage should be ruled if offender's partner could have selected his subsequent call(s) based upon information conveyed by the insufficient bid as such, and as a result of that the offending side eventually obtained a better result than they otherwise could likely have obtained. Note, this was NOT, nor is directly spelled out in the laws, but as far as I know was the common interpretation until recently (and still is in Norway just to name one area). Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 22 05:15:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3LJFmf13724 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 05:15:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3LJFgH13720 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 05:15:43 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3LJ4Gi06376 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:04:16 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 20:04 +0100 (BST) 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: > Tim West-meads writes > >In-Reply-To: <007801c1e76f$e5e598e0$c18d403e@dodona> > >Grattan wrote: > >> Regulations that are the subject of some debate on this > >> channel are in order if they are "not inconsistent" with the Laws > >> of D.C.B. Their conformance is a matter for interpretation. Now, > >> isn't that the revolving door by which this discussion came in? > > > >To an extent, yes. But I believe that you have made it absolutely > clear >that the WBF will interpret *any* regulation as "consistent with > the laws" >in preference to confronting the NBO in question. > > How do you know that? sure, you and others have a view about certain > specific Laws and regs. But how do you know it applies to any reg - > what evidence have you got for this? I know it because Grattan has repeatedly said that the WBF will attempt to persuade NBOs rather than confront them. I have never heard of a case where and NBO has been disciplined for failure to abide by the laws (of this could be because such things are carried out in secret but that is little better IMO). > I do not believe it, myself. I do not think the WBF will accept an > NBO that wishes to call it bridge and play with 44 cards. I think the WBF is rather more likely to accept such a change than any NBO is to propose it. However my understanding was that should the ACBL determine that such a regulation was in the interests of their members (the poor lambs keep losing track of the 2s and 3s) then you would support the change yourself. 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 Apr 22 08:12:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3LMBb113809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:11:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3LMBUH13800 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:11:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.66.20] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16zPN1-000168-00; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:59:44 +0100 Message-ID: <004701c1e980$0bf3d760$1442e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:23:22 +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: Cc: Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 8:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > I know it because Grattan has repeatedly said that > the WBF will attempt to persuade NBOs rather than > confront them. > Tim > +=+ In a matter arising from the Laws, never has done so in my experience - and I judge that it will not do so, except in extremis. In these regards the confrontational approach is not pragmatic. ~ 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 Apr 22 08:12:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3LMBd213810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:11:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.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 g3LMBVH13803 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 08:11:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.66.20] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16zPN3-000168-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:59:45 +0100 Message-ID: <004801c1e980$0cf73da0$1442e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <003101c1e948$0220b6a0$4e1ae150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:46:29 +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 Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > The council members in question may well feel that they > are representing the views of the majority of the electorate > that voted for them, and in many cases a referendum > might even show that to be true, but until you hold the > referendum, that's only their opinion. > +=+ Not only their opinion, also their prerogative, if elected to represent the membership.+=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 22 10:52:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3M0pUd13893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:51:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3M0pOH13889 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:51:25 +1000 (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 BAA14273 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:39:53 +0100 From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:39:53 +0100 Subject: [BLML] 2 appeals X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3cc35bd9.6dc.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 213.116.40.207 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 1st one Pairs nil all Dealer East North S JTxxx H x D QJxxx C Tx West East S Q9xx S x H A32 H KJT9xx D AKxx D x C 9x South C KQxxx S AKx H Q8x D Txx C AJ8x Bidding E S W N 1H P 1S DBL(1) 2C P 3H P 4H all pass (1) the double was not alerted. see below South led the SAK ruffed. Declarer now "placed" N with the remaining high cards and played HK, HA. C to Q and ace. QH, Diamond - 1. At no time until the hand was over did declarer ask the meaning of norths double. N/S played the double as lead directional. At the end of the hand East enquired to the meaning of North's double and when told it was lead directional as opposed to the normal other 2 suits he called the td and stated he would have played the hand differently had he got the correct information. He claimed he would not have drawn 2 trumps but one only with the ace and played for a club ruff. The td ruled MI and adjusted the score to 4H making. East was a top player. N/s appealed. your decision. 2nd one Teams Dealer East Vul all North S x H Jx D AKxxx C Axxxx West East S xxx S KJTxx H A9xxx H Qxx D 9x D QJT8x C Qxx South C - S AQ7x H Kxx D x C KTxxx Bidding E S W N 2S(1) P 3S(2) P(3) 4S(4) Dbl(5) all pass (1) 5 spades 5+ minor 6-10, alerted (2) barrage (3) Asked for meaning of the 2S bid. disputed subsequent pause but say about 2 seconds (4) thought 3S was invitational (5) South assumed a normal barrage auction - could place north with some values, figured east had diamonds and planned to pump him with clubs. he counted 3 tricks in his hand and 1/2 in pds. West called the td after the hand was over and stated that he felt south had doubled on norths questions and pausing. South stated that north was entitled to ask the meaning of a bid and that norths subsequent bidding was completely in tempo. E/w disputed this. South felt that regardless of Norths actions, he had a clearcut double - trumps behind declarer +1 or both outside kings. North on the auction was marked with values making the double a standout. The Td changed the score to 4S-3 undoubled. N/S appealed. Your decision. -- 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 Apr 22 11:33:27 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3M1X2u13924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:33:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3M1WsH13920 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:32:55 +1000 (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 16zSWC-0003SW-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:21:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 01:37:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson 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 Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >> Tim West-meads writes >> >In-Reply-To: <007801c1e76f$e5e598e0$c18d403e@dodona> >> >Grattan wrote: >> >> Regulations that are the subject of some debate on this >> >> channel are in order if they are "not inconsistent" with the Laws >> >> of D.C.B. Their conformance is a matter for interpretation. Now, >> >> isn't that the revolving door by which this discussion came in? >> > >> >To an extent, yes. But I believe that you have made it absolutely >> clear >that the WBF will interpret *any* regulation as "consistent with >> the laws" >in preference to confronting the NBO in question. >> >> How do you know that? sure, you and others have a view about certain >> specific Laws and regs. But how do you know it applies to any reg - >> what evidence have you got for this? > >I know it because Grattan has repeatedly said that the WBF will attempt to >persuade NBOs rather than confront them. I have never heard of a case >where and NBO has been disciplined for failure to abide by the laws (of >this could be because such things are carried out in secret but that is >little better IMO). > >> I do not believe it, myself. I do not think the WBF will accept an >> NBO that wishes to call it bridge and play with 44 cards. > >I think the WBF is rather more likely to accept such a change than any NBO >is to propose it. However my understanding was that should the ACBL >determine that such a regulation was in the interests of their members >(the poor lambs keep losing track of the 2s and 3s) then you would support >the change yourself. All right, I give up. Kindly do not "quote" me again, and I shall ignore your statements in future. Fair? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 22 12:41:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3M2f5Q13957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:41:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from lima.epix.net (lima.epix.net [199.224.64.56]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3M2exH13949 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:41:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from dell600 (svcr-216-37-228-242.dsl.svcr.epix.net [216.37.228.242]) by lima.epix.net (8.12.1/2002040201/PL) with SMTP id g3M2TXkK028626 for ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:29:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:29:33 -0400 Organization: Wellsboro Computing Services, Inc. Reply-To: brian@wellsborocomputing.com Message-ID: References: <003101c1e948$0220b6a0$4e1ae150@dodona> <004801c1e980$0cf73da0$1442e150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <004801c1e980$0cf73da0$1442e150@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 Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:46:29 +0100, Grattan wrote: > >Grattan Endicott++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >"In this country, we do not administer justice by >plebiscite. A judge ... must follow his conscience >whether or not he counters the manifest wishes >of those he serves" [ judicial ruling on review >in the case of Louise Woodward, 1997] >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Meadows" >To: >Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2002 6:19 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > > >> The council members in question may well feel that they >> are representing the views of the majority of the electorate >> that voted for them, and in many cases a referendum >> might even show that to be true, but until you hold the >> referendum, that's only their opinion. >> >+=+ Not only their opinion, also their prerogative, if elected >to represent the membership.+=+ I'm saying nothing about prerogatives, I'm talking about facts. *NO* elected official can state with absolute certainty that his view coincides with the majority view of his constituents on any contentious question without having consulted said constituents. A point made very clearly by the quotation above. The judge in question had more common sense than to claim that his views were necessarily the same as the majority view "of those he served". To return to what prompted my original posting, you said "1.The actions of the Council of an NBO, duly elected by its members, must be taken to express and record the desires of the majority." I maintain that is inaccurate. Their actions (hopefully!) record their opinion of the desires of the majority. On any contentious question, they cannot know for certain. 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 Apr 22 14:06:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3M46Dq13994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:06:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.comcast.net (smtp.comcast.net [24.153.64.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3M468H13990 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 14:06:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from rota.alumni.princeton.edu (pcp01782626pcs.howard01.md.comcast.net [68.32.52.241]) by mtaout03.icomcast.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 HotFix 0.3 (built Apr 8 2002)) with ESMTP id <0GUY000LIAUVST@mtaout03.icomcast.net> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 23:54:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 23:52:11 -0400 From: "David J. Grabiner" Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 appeals In-reply-to: <3cc35bd9.6dc.0@esatclear.ie> X-Sender: davidgrabiner@mail.comcast.net To: karel@esatclear.ie, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020421225235.00c75410@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 01:39 AM 4/22/2002 +0100, you wrote: >1st one > >Pairs nil all Dealer East > > North > S JTxxx > H x > D QJxxx > C Tx >West East >S Q9xx S x >H A32 H KJT9xx >D AKxx D x >C 9x South C KQxxx > S AKx > H Q8x > D Txx > C AJ8x > >Bidding E S W N > 1H P 1S DBL(1) > 2C P 3H P > 4H all pass > >(1) the double was not alerted. see below > > > >South led the SAK ruffed. Declarer now "placed" N with the >remaining high cards and played HK, HA. C to Q and ace. QH, Diamond - 1. >At no time until the hand was over did declarer ask the meaning of norths >double. > >N/S played the double as lead directional. East was clearly misinformed, and while he might have been suspicious in the middle of the play, he can't be sure that anything was wrong until after he loses the CA. It is at least theoretically possible that North has Jxx Qx QJTxx AJTx and South has AKTxx xx xxxx xx. > At the end of the hand East >enquired to the meaning of North's double and when told it was lead >directional as opposed to the normal other 2 suits he called the td >and stated he would have played the hand differently had he got the correct > >information. He claimed he would not have drawn 2 trumps but one only with > >the ace and played for a club ruff. This is a reasonable line of play. HA, club lost to someone's ace, win the return, HK, CQ, and one club is ruffed, one goes on DK, and one goes on SQ, with only the HQ to lose. The line will work against either example hand. >The td ruled MI and adjusted the score to 4H making. East was a top player. > >N/s appealed. your decision. Should East have made the contract anyway? It doesn't appear to be a failure to play bridge, although I worked it out eventually. If North showed an odd number of spades, he has three, giving South five, and thus there is no need for South to draw two rounds of trumps early to protect against South having a stiff club; with five spades to the AK and a stiff club, South probably would have overcalled, and even if South didn't overcall, trumps cannot be 2-2 since that would give North only three diamonds. Thus if East believes the auction, he should have finessed in hearts, playing South not to have overcalled on AKTxx Qxx xxxx x. Still, I don't think it is fair to penalize South for not protecting against an impossible distribution. TD ruling upheld, but appeal has merit. >2nd one > >Teams Dealer East Vul all > > North > S x > H Jx > D AKxxx > C Axxxx >West East >S xxx S KJTxx >H A9xxx H Qxx >D 9x D QJT8x >C Qxx South C - > S AQ7x > H Kxx > D x > C KTxxx > >Bidding E S W N > 2S(1) P 3S(2) P(3) > 4S(4) Dbl(5) all pass > >(1) 5 spades 5+ minor 6-10, alerted >(2) barrage >(3) Asked for meaning of the 2S bid. > disputed subsequent pause but say about 2 seconds >(4) thought 3S was invitational >(5) South assumed a normal barrage auction - could place north with some > values, figured east had diamonds and planned to pump him with clubs. > he counted 3 tricks in his hand and 1/2 in pds. > >West called the td after the hand was over and stated that he felt south >had doubled on norths questions and pausing. South stated that north was >entitled to ask the meaning of a bid and that norths subsequent bidding was > >completely in tempo. E/w disputed this. South felt that regardless of Norths > >actions, he had a clearcut double - trumps behind declarer +1 or both outside > >kings. North on the auction was marked with values making the double a >standout. > >The Td changed the score to 4S-3 undoubled. N/S appealed. Your >decision. I agree with South. The UI suggested a double, but South's own hand makes pass not a LA. , Even if it the auction is invitational, South expects to beat this contract because of the trump break, and down two or three is likely. (Give North - Axx xxxxxx xxxx and 4S is down two.) Table result restored. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 22 20:09:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MA7kO14258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:07:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3MA7bH14250 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:07:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3M9uAU20841 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:56:10 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:56 +0100 (BST) 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: DWS wrote: > >I think the WBF is rather more likely to accept such a change than any > NBO >is to propose it. However my understanding was that should the > ACBL >determine that such a regulation was in the interests of their > members >(the poor lambs keep losing track of the 2s and 3s) then you > would support >the change yourself. > > All right, I give up. > > Kindly do not "quote" me again, and I shall ignore your statements in > future. Fair? I will continue to quote you - you can, of course, ignore what I say. After all, why should the deeply held beliefs of any member of the EBU be of concern to those responsible for ruling the game? To me there is little difference between "banning all psyches" and "playing with 44 cards". Both changes would fundamentally alter the nature of the game. I can't understand why you think NBOs should be allowed to do the former and not the latter. I actually believe that "NBOs should be able to change the laws if it is in their members interests" is a perfectly valid viewpoint (although obviously it should apply to both the above scenarios). However it is not a viewpoint I share, and it is not a viewpoint supported by the current constitution of the WBF. Of course the WBF is entitled to change it's constitution - but until it does I believe the NBOs should be restricted, by the WBF, to acting within the laws even if that requires confrontation. 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 Apr 22 20:09:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MA7on14259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:07:50 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3MA7bH14251 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:07:38 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3M9uBS20855 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:56:11 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:56 +0100 (BST) 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: <003101c1e948$0220b6a0$4e1ae150@dodona> 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 line of thought leads to the discovery that all sponsoring > organizations are regulating for their own tournaments, and with > wide differences amongst them. Those differences are inspired, we > must assume, by the will of the constituency that an organization > represents. Oh good. I will also assume that the government of Robert Mugabe represents the will of the Zimbabwean people and that the policies of Tony Blair are those desired by the majority of the British electorate. Don't get me wrong, I have no wonderful alternative to constitutional democracy but I do not believe that one should ever *assume* that the decisions of government reflect the will of the people. > +=+ 1.The actions of the Council of an NBO, duly elected by > its members, must be taken to express and record the > desires of the majority. Excellent. We can bring back hanging in the UK. "Reflecting the will of the majority" should be subordinate in a democracy to "Protecting the rights of the minority". > 2. Does Tim claim to define 'the words and spirit of the > international laws', arrogating to himself the ability and > the right to redefine the authoritative interpretations just > because he does not like them? He prattles on with his > idiosyncratic opinions, but to what end? I read the words of the laws I try to understand the sentiments behind them. I claim: "The writers of the laws intended to recognise psyching, judgement, and diversity of bidding approaches as fundamental parts of the game". And I may be wrong, maybe they really didn't. And maybe the original writers did but the current authorities believe that should no longer be the case. 1) If the WBF wants NBOs to be empowered to ban psyches from mainstream bridge then the WBF can change the laws to make that clear. L40A doesn't read that way at the moment. 2) If the WBF wants NBOs to be able to mandate specific methods of hand evaluation (eg the Milton Work Count) for all competitions they can make that clear too. 3) If the WBF wants NBOs to be able to run special competitions (eg for novices, or par contests) where some of the laws are suspended they can do that too. I would expect the WBF to be unimpressed if an NBO said that 90% of pairs competitions were "special". Personally I believe that 1) and 2) above would be tragically demeaning to the game while 3) would be a very worthwhile addition (or clarification of reality). What I deeply resent, and prattle on about in the vain hope that someone, somewhere is listening, is the fact that nobody *reading* the current laws would have any hope of arriving at the *interpretations* issued by the WBF. The lack of transparency between the written law and its application is huge - and yes I have the temerity to claim that lack of transparency is a bad thing. Nor, I have to say, do my prattlings represent the views of an isolated madman. I know that a sizeable minority (actually a near universal majority of the players I have spoken with but I do not claim the sample to be in any way representative) of my fellow players feel it would be wrong to ban psyches/restrict judgement. When I posted here, a few months back, some proposed guidelines on psyching (and regulating psyches) I received a lot of positive comment and some constructive advice on changes - but sadly nothing from the powers that be (positive, constructive, or negative) that might have helped take the suggestions forward. 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 Apr 22 20:48:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MAkn214287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:46:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3MAkjH14283 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 20:46:45 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 15090 invoked by uid 504); 22 Apr 2002 10:35:15 -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 2.72467 secs); 22 Apr 2002 10:35:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.22.186) by 0 with SMTP; 22 Apr 2002 10:35:12 -0000 Message-ID: <004201c1e9e8$b046d0c0$ba16b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:30:10 +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: Monday, April 22, 2002 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychs and the Rule of 18 > In-Reply-To: <003101c1e948$0220b6a0$4e1ae150@dodona> > 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 line of thought leads to the discovery that all sponsoring > > organizations are regulating for their own tournaments, and with > > wide differences amongst them. Those differences are inspired, we > > must assume, by the will of the constituency that an organization > > represents. > > Oh good. I will also assume that the government of Robert Mugabe > represents the will of the Zimbabwean people and that the policies of Tony > Blair are those desired by the majority of the British electorate. > Don't get me wrong, I have no wonderful alternative to constitutional > democracy but I do not believe that one should ever *assume* that the > decisions of government reflect the will of the people. > > > +=+ 1.The actions of the Council of an NBO, duly elected by > > its members, must be taken to express and record the > > desires of the majority. > > Excellent. We can bring back hanging in the UK. "Reflecting the will of > the majority" should be subordinate in a democracy to "Protecting the > rights of the minority". > > > 2. Does Tim claim to define 'the words and spirit of the > > international laws', arrogating to himself the ability and > > the right to redefine the authoritative interpretations just > > because he does not like them? He prattles on with his > > idiosyncratic opinions, but to what end? > > I read the words of the laws I try to understand the sentiments behind > them. I claim: > > "The writers of the laws intended to recognise psyching, judgement, and > diversity of bidding approaches as fundamental parts of the game". > And I may be wrong, maybe they really didn't. And maybe the original > writers did but the current authorities believe that should no longer be > the case. > > 1) If the WBF wants NBOs to be empowered to ban psyches from mainstream > bridge then the WBF can change the laws to make that clear. L40A doesn't > read that way at the moment. > > 2) If the WBF wants NBOs to be able to mandate specific methods of hand > evaluation (eg the Milton Work Count) for all competitions they can make > that clear too. > > 3) If the WBF wants NBOs to be able to run special competitions (eg for > novices, or par contests) where some of the laws are suspended they can do > that too. I would expect the WBF to be unimpressed if an NBO said that > 90% of pairs competitions were "special". > > Personally I believe that 1) and 2) above would be tragically demeaning to > the game while 3) would be a very worthwhile addition (or clarification of > reality). > > What I deeply resent, and prattle on about in the vain hope that someone, > somewhere is listening, is the fact that nobody *reading* the current laws > would have any hope of arriving at the *interpretations* issued by the > WBF. The lack of transparency between the written law and its application > is huge - and yes I have the temerity to claim that lack of transparency > is a bad thing. > > Nor, I have to say, do my prattlings represent the views of an isolated > madman. I know that a sizeable minority (actually a near universal > majority of the players I have spoken with but I do not claim the sample > to be in any way representative) of my fellow players feel it would be > wrong to ban psyches/restrict judgement. > > When I posted here, a few months back, some proposed guidelines on > psyching (and regulating psyches) I received a lot of positive comment and > some constructive advice on changes - but sadly nothing from the powers > that be (positive, constructive, or negative) that might have helped take > the suggestions forward. > > Tim > This seems eminently reasonable to me - transparency and all. Somehow asking for laws to say what they mean and for regulations to comply with those laws is a damnable offense in this forum. 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 Apr 22 21:48:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MBmNs14324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:48:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eomer.vianetworks.nl (eomer.vianetworks.nl [212.61.15.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3MBmGH14320 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 21:48:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d052.iae.nl [212.61.3.52]) by eomer.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0D84621749 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:35:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <003201c1e9f1$a1e4c880$a3053dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:31:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 really hope I understand DWS well: The agreement is 4th highest. With Q 4 the lead is Q (standard), with Q 6 4 2 the lead is again 2, with Q 4 2 there is a problem. The agreement is therefore changed in 1e, 3e, 5e and not more, fully disclosed on the CC. With Q 4 the lead is Q (standard), with Q 6 4 2 the lead is Q or 4, is with Q 8 6 4 2 the lead really free to be Q, 6 or 2? No problems with the latter agreement? I have met several in the past. With 8 5 2 when the 8 or 2 is chosen, with 10 5 2 when the 10 is chosen in partners overcall; declarer ruffed high in the 3d trick that defeated the contract, with Q 10 8 2 when the 2 is chosen because the 8 may have values later. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 1:46 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? > Todd Zimnoch writes > >>From: David Stevenson > >> They have fully disclosed their agreement which seems to be to lead > >>the 1st, 3rd or 5th card. That is their agreement: that is what they > >>do: that is what they did. WTP? > > > > The problem is that there's additional information that helps them > >decide whether to lead 1st, 3rd, or 5th. Have you determined that this > >information need not be disclosed? > > There are two points I would make. > > First, their description, as told to us, suggests they had not really > got solid agreements as to which one to lead. > > Second, if you actually believe they are playing 1st, 3rd and 5th [and > John's objection, for example, seems to be lack of belief rather than > anything] then you can either ask further or assume: if you assume then > surely the 9 from KT962 is far more likely than the K or the 2? > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 22 23:30:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MDTjK14461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:29:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3MDTdH14457 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:29:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3MDIAH01529 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:18:11 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Apr 22 15:14:20 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGVABLTZ44001V1W@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:17:40 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <2ZNFPRSD>; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:17:19 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:17:39 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > I tried to explain the changes made in 27 before. > > No reference to L16 before '97. If you had paid your > > penalty you could use information from withdrawn calls. > ~~~ > +=+ Good day, > The 1975 Laws introduced the power, I think for the first > time, for the Director to judge that, even when substituted by the > lowest legal bid in the same denomination, the first bid had > conveyed such substantial information that the result should > not be allowed to stand. This power was continued in the 1987 > Laws (and separated out into the separate subclause 27B1(b).) > Kaplan's illustration in 1987, approved by the WBFLC, of a case > where this could apply, was the case when the IB had shown an > opening hand. > The Director is given this same power in the 1997 Laws > and no fresh advice was given, that I recall or find in my papers, > by the WBFLC. So I believe the 1987 advice remains good. That seems too easy to me. When changing laws not discussing the consequences of that should not automatically lead to the conclusion that previous interpretations remain the same. > However, it should be noted that what the Law provides is that > the *Director* may *judge* the matter in his discretion; the Law > itself does not specify any circumstances in which he must rule > it to be so. Reading the text of Law 27B1(a) it appears to say > that Law 16C2 is not applied in this situation but nevertheless > that Law 27B1(b) may apply. +=+ > ~~~ > In my country we followed the formal route: penalty paid, no UI. > > > +=+ It is not clear to me how Dutch Directors use the power > given to them by 27B1(b). It clearly exists and is there for > them to use in some way. But I see no reason why, in Holland, > the Dutch should not do as the Dutch think fit - the EBL, > the ACBL, and other NBOs give guidance on how to use > the power - so why not The Netherlands? Indeed, we agree here. As to whether such > guidance should be said to have the force of law, I would doubt, > no matter who is giving it; the Laws put the judgement > unequivocally into the hands of the Director on each occasion, > and it is the appeals committee that is responsible for oversight > of the Director's exercise of his power of judgement. What I > would say is that the right for the Director to judge that 27B1(b) > applies is there, worldwide, for him to use and the Law places > no restraint upon his use of it. ~ G ~ +=+ > This really sounds amazing to me. No TD should have the power to give his own interpretation to laws, nor should any AC have that right. The laws should be clear in the application and if they are not the LC should give an universal interpretation to be followed. Your description makes it possible to have changing opinions and decisions in identical situations even by one TD or one AC. That sounds horrible. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 22 23:53:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MDrYo14479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:53:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3MDrSH14475 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:53:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3227.bb.online.no [80.212.220.155]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA16960; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:41:54 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000701c1ea03$77544f20$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Kooijman, A." , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:41:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 notice what I now have called attention to several times: There was NO real change to Law27B1 in 1997 ! (The change was to Law16C2, and this was now expressively made unappliccable when ruling by Law27B1, probably because we had Law27B1(b), and incidently had had this all the time since 1975.) Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 3:17 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > > > > > > I tried to explain the changes made in 27 before. > > > No reference to L16 before '97. If you had paid your > > > penalty you could use information from withdrawn calls. > > ~~~ > > +=+ Good day, > > The 1975 Laws introduced the power, I think for the first > > time, for the Director to judge that, even when substituted by the > > lowest legal bid in the same denomination, the first bid had > > conveyed such substantial information that the result should > > not be allowed to stand. This power was continued in the 1987 > > Laws (and separated out into the separate subclause 27B1(b).) > > Kaplan's illustration in 1987, approved by the WBFLC, of a case > > where this could apply, was the case when the IB had shown an > > opening hand. > > The Director is given this same power in the 1997 Laws > > and no fresh advice was given, that I recall or find in my papers, > > by the WBFLC. So I believe the 1987 advice remains good. > > That seems too easy to me. When changing laws not discussing the > consequences of that should not automatically lead to the conclusion that > previous interpretations remain the same. > > > > > > > However, it should be noted that what the Law provides is that > > the *Director* may *judge* the matter in his discretion; the Law > > itself does not specify any circumstances in which he must rule > > it to be so. Reading the text of Law 27B1(a) it appears to say > > that Law 16C2 is not applied in this situation but nevertheless > > that Law 27B1(b) may apply. +=+ > > ~~~ > > In my country we followed the formal route: penalty paid, no UI. > > > > > +=+ It is not clear to me how Dutch Directors use the power > > given to them by 27B1(b). It clearly exists and is there for > > them to use in some way. But I see no reason why, in Holland, > > the Dutch should not do as the Dutch think fit - the EBL, > > the ACBL, and other NBOs give guidance on how to use > > the power - so why not The Netherlands? > > Indeed, we agree here. > > > > > > As to whether such > > guidance should be said to have the force of law, I would doubt, > > no matter who is giving it; the Laws put the judgement > > unequivocally into the hands of the Director on each occasion, > > and it is the appeals committee that is responsible for oversight > > of the Director's exercise of his power of judgement. What I > > would say is that the right for the Director to judge that 27B1(b) > > applies is there, worldwide, for him to use and the Law places > > no restraint upon his use of it. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > This really sounds amazing to me. No TD should have the power to give his > own interpretation to laws, nor should any AC have that right. The laws > should be clear in the application and if they are not the LC should give an > universal interpretation to be followed. Your description makes it possible > to have changing opinions and decisions in identical situations even by one > TD or one AC. That sounds horrible. > > ton > -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 23 01:28:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MFRNB14530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:27:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca ([132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3MFRIH14526 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:27:18 +1000 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g3MFG8p26098 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:16:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200204221516.g3MFG8p26098@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (Bridge Laws) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 11:16:07 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Ed Reppert" at Apr 20, 2002 10:01:52 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL4] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I don't think there should be a "special edition", I think the laws > ought to be written in such a way as to be clear to any reader, not > written in such a way as to allow a TD or committee or NCBO (or "bridge > lawyer") to find a way to do whatever he/they want. As I've mentioned many times I think the answer is to have an official case book that accompanies the Laws. It's terribly difficult to craft laws in a way that will be absolutely clear to all. Mind you Jeff Rubens has said that some of the ambiguity in the Laws is intentional. If that's the case then I fear very little can be done. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 23 01:49:40 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MFmEw14549 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:48:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3MFm9H14545 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:48:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.65.186] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 16zfrY-0004ek-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:36:21 +0100 Message-ID: <003501c1ea13$70b9fd80$ba41e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:15:31 +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 Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; Sent: 22 April 2002 14:17 Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > > > The Director is given this same power in the 1997 > > Laws and no fresh advice was given, that I recall or find > > in my papers, by the WBFLC. So I believe the 1987 > > advice remains good. > > That seems too easy to me. When changing laws not > discussing the consequences of that should not > automatically lead to the conclusion that previous > interpretations remain the same. > +=+ Would you not think it bizarre to suggest that where a Law is unchanged, as is the case with 27B1(b), the advice that has held good for years, and with nothing fresh said, is suddenly trashed? Is it your argument that all the work of the committee in previous years is dismantled at each Review of the Laws, or indeed on some other occasion, unless (as we did with score adjustment on 30 August 98) the committee acting as such announces a change of policy?. +=+ > > > As to whether such > > guidance should be said to have the force > > of law, I would doubt, no matter who is giving it; > > the Laws put the judgement unequivocally into > > the hands of the Director on each occasion, and > > it is the appeals committee that is responsible > > for oversight of the Director's exercise of his > > power of judgement. What I would say is that the > > right for the Director to judge that 27B1(b) > > applies is there, worldwide, for him to use and > > the Law places no restraint upon his use of it. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > This really sounds amazing to me. No TD should > have the power to give his own interpretation to laws, > nor should any AC have that right. The laws should be > clear in the application and if they are not the LC > should give an universal interpretation to be followed. > Your description makes it possible to have changing > opinions and decisions in identical situations even by > one TD or one AC. That sounds horrible. > +=+ Not nearly so horrible, I suggest, as the thought of the Laws Committee arrogantly thinking it had some right to control the exercise by the Director and the Appeals Committee of the authority expressly given to them in the Laws to make bridge judgements. That sounds just like the outmoded concept that the Director is merely some kind of puppet who makes rulings automatically and is not to be trusted to exercise the discretionary powers that the laws give to him to form opinions and act upon them. . The WBFLC properly decides what the Laws mean, but how that meaning applies to the circumstances of any particular incident is a matter within the competence of the Director and the Appeals Committee, not of the Laws Committee. ~ 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 Apr 23 06:14:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MKDjh14758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:13:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3MKDeH14754 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 06:13:41 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 16zk0q-0005Zx-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:02:12 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020422155454.00aab820@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:02:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question In-Reply-To: <011b01c1e7ba$2d8af7e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <4.3.2.7.0.20020419100825.00b20d50@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM 4/19/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > >Correct ruling in such cases is that the irregularity has *not* > > >caused damage to NOS; what did cause damage was the > > >"card luck" (bad or good depending on which way you look > > >at it). Therefore the obtained result shall stand. > > > > I've been playing bridge for over 40 years and have never heard > > of any such thing. Nor can I find any law, rule, or interpretation > > that could possibly justify it. > > > > Damage subsequent to an infraction must be determined by the > > TD/AC to be either consequent to the infraction, in which case > > it is redressed, or consequent to the actions of the NOS subsequent > > to the infraction, in which case it is not. "Card luck" has nothing > > to do with it. > > Or am I wrong? Is this not a consensual part of bridge jurisprudence? > >The primary applicable law is 12A1 which applies on damage >caused by an infraction for which the laws do not provide indemnity. > >To illustrate the "problem" consider a case which could actually >have happened in our club many years ago, when North still was >responsible for among other things that the correct boards are played >in each round (Described here as if it really did happen). Today this >responsibility lies with a contestant (if any) is remaining at a table >throughout a session (L7D), so the case could still be equally relevant: > >One board was such that it is "impossible" not to end in a contract >of 4H in North, and it is impossible not to make exactly 9 tricks. >The North-South pair in question was of a rather low class and didn't >manage to bid more than 3H which they of course just made for a top >score. The only problem was that they had taken the wrong board to >be played, so they obtained this top score against a pair not destined >for that board against them. > >Is this "unlucky" pair entitled to an adjustment because of the >irregularity >in which they were not at fault themselves, and for which they received >a clear bottom instead of the average they would have received had the >irregularity not occurred? (They would have played the board against a >pair of "normal" class). > >My interpretation of the laws is that the connection between the >irregularity and the damage here was far too remote to justify an >adjustment. The "damage" was simply a result of the peculiarities >on that board (hard "card luck") rather than a result of the infraction. > >If you have access to the commentary of the 1987 laws you may find >a corroborating comment in 23.5 (pages 81&83), part of which reads: >South holding 11 high card points opposite a partner opening 1NT with >a full 16HCP is barred by an infraction. All pairs are bidding 3NT but >North can only make 8 tricks. Do not adjust the score for this pair who >had to play 1NT. North could not have known that it was favourable to >bar partner, it just turned out that way. This example, while clearly valid, corroborates nothing of Sven's original statement. What it says is that "North could not have known that it was favorable to bar partner", and therefore E-W, although clearly damaged by the enforced pass, are not entitled to redress. Period. It certainly doesn't say that the E-W aren't entitled to redress because the damage was caused by "card luck", but would be if the damage were caused by something else, even though North "could not have known..." I trust Sven isn't suggesting that what North "could have known" is somehow a function of the other players' holdings on the deal, or that "could have known" implies that he must have looked at his opponents' (or partner's) cards. 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 Apr 23 07:26:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MLPu614790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 07:25:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (Amnesix.uqss.uquebec.ca [192.77.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3MLPoH14786 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 07:25:51 +1000 (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 RAA16749; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:14:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "Laval Dubreuil" To: , Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:16:34 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <200204221516.g3MFG8p26098@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As I've mentioned many times I think the answer is to have an official case book that accompanies the Laws. It's terribly difficult to craft laws in a way that will be absolutely clear to all. ____________________________________________________________________ Having spend hundred hours on writing material (flow charts, articles and other such things) to explain bridge laws since 10 years, I fully agree. The most important lack is examples or cases. The only law that have such "official" thing is Law 75. It is highly risky for a single author to venture in this "Boite de Pandore". 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 Apr 23 08:00:47 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3MM0Zd14817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:00:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3MM0UH14813 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:00:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3157.bb.online.no [80.212.220.85]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA24097 for ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:48:57 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000c01c1ea47$813b2880$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 23:48:56 +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: "Laval Dubreuil" > > As I've mentioned many times I think the answer is to have an official > case book that accompanies the Laws. It's terribly difficult to craft > laws in a way that will be absolutely clear to all. > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Having spend hundred hours on writing material (flow charts, articles > and other such things) to explain bridge laws since 10 years, I fully > agree. The most important lack is examples or cases. The only law > that have such "official" thing is Law 75. It is highly risky for > a single author to venture in this "Boite de Pandore". Have you seen the "Commentary" issued in 1992? It is a 390 pages A4-sized book, and most of it is still valuable on the laws of 1997. I do appreciate the effort behind that book, I am astonished it was possible to write it and I just hope there might be further issues. In the meantime I think the next best thing would be to have the preparatory notes etc. issued with each new version of the laws. There I should expect to find sufficient documentation to safely understand the intentions of laws that themselves seem unclear. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 23 16:33:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3N6W1l15010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:32:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from excalibur.skynet.be (excalibur.skynet.be [195.238.3.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3N6VtH15006 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:31:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47567.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.57.207]) by excalibur.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.17) with ESMTP id g3N6KKk25191 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:20:20 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CC4FD66.3060203@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 08:21:26 +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] Re: simpler Laws References: <000c01c1ea47$813b2880$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: "Laval Dubreuil" > > >>As I've mentioned many times I think the answer is to have an official >>case book that accompanies the Laws. It's terribly difficult to craft >>laws in a way that will be absolutely clear to all. >>____________________________________________________________________ >> >>Having spend hundred hours on writing material (flow charts, articles >>and other such things) to explain bridge laws since 10 years, I fully >>agree. The most important lack is examples or cases. The only law >>that have such "official" thing is Law 75. It is highly risky for >>a single author to venture in this "Boite de Pandore". >> > > Have you seen the "Commentary" issued in 1992? It is a 390 pages > A4-sized book, and most of it is still valuable on the laws of 1997. > > I do appreciate the effort behind that book, I am astonished it was > possible to write it and I just hope there might be further issues. > > In the meantime I think the next best thing would be to have the > preparatory notes etc. issued with each new version of the laws. > There I should expect to find sufficient documentation to safely > understand the intentions of laws that themselves seem unclear. > Why don't we start a discussion group where Directors can pool resources and learn from one another ? Damn, I'm six years too late with that idea. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 23 17:47:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3N7kWG15049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:46:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3N7kRH15045 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:46:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id RAA28013 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:48:11 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:32:19 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws To: "bridge-laws::.gov.au":"rgb.anu.edu.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:31:59 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 23/04/2002 05:32:14 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: [snip] >It's terribly difficult to craft laws in a way >that will be absolutely clear to all. > >Mind you Jeff Rubens has said that some of the >ambiguity in the Laws is intentional. If that's >the case then I fear very little can be done. Tim wrote (in the thread Psychs and the rule of 18): [big snip] >What I deeply resent, and prattle on about in the >vain hope that someone, somewhere is listening, is >the fact that nobody *reading* the current laws >would have any hope of arriving at the >*interpretations* issued by the WBF. The lack of >transparency between the written law and its >application is huge - and yes I have the temerity >to claim that lack of transparency is a bad thing. [big snip] Eric Landau wrote (in the thread The Sabbath was made for..): [snip] >If the Laws of Bridge were "as skeletal as >possible", we would have a very short >international code, which would read, in total: > >"L1. Zonal organizations shall make such laws and >rules as they see fit, and shall be free to >delegate that authority to their member NCBOs." > >It is up to those who have repeatedly said that ZOs >and NCBOs are in a better position to judge what >best serves their own members than the WBF is to >either defend the proposition that that would be a >good thing, or to explain why it would not, given >their premise. Stirring these three comments together, and adding my own thoughts, it appears the following two propositions have significant acceptance: 1. Kaplanese ambiguous language is inappropriate in today's Laws; and, 2. Uniformity and diversity of the "nature" of bridge should be carefully balanced by the WBF in the new edition of the Laws. 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 Apr 23 17:48:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3N7mGL15061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:48:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from birch.ripe.net (birch.ripe.net [193.0.1.96]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3N7mBH15057 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:48:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from x49.ripe.net (x49.ripe.net [193.0.1.49]) by birch.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3N7acu24631; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:36:38 +0200 Received: from localhost (henk@localhost) by x49.ripe.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3N7acR27248; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:36:38 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: x49.ripe.net: henk owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:36:37 +0200 (CEST) From: "Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)" To: David Stevenson cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The Laws in Dutch In-Reply-To: <1AmzQvBlELw8Ew$u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, David Stevenson wrote: > Just recently I have discovered there is a Dutch version, with some > notes, at > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~woek/spelregels/d1.htm As far as I can see, this is the official Dutch translation of the laws. In the Table of Contents, chapters are labelled "CLA", "CLB" and "WL" meaning that they are discussed in the 3 TD courses. "CLA"="Clubleider A" = "assistant TD for clubs", "CLB" = "TD for club games", "WL"=Wedstrijdleider = TD. Also there are the Guidelines for AC, the Alert procedure, BSC/HOM rules, Neuberg's formula, Screen regulations and rules for filling out a convention card. This stuff is also on the NBB site. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal@ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 23 20:19:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NAIsc15128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:18:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from eowyn.vianetworks.nl (eowyn.iae.nl [212.61.25.227]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NAImH15124 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:18:49 +1000 (EST) Received: from b0e7g1 (pm17d410.iae.nl [212.61.5.156]) by eowyn.vianetworks.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id BED7820F50 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:07:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <008001c1eaae$6f7a9c40$f9033dd4@b0e7g1> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000c01c1ea47$813b2880$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CC4FD66.3060203@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:05:05 +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 During May 2002: Laws 1-5 to start with. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws > Sven Pran wrote: > > > From: "Laval Dubreuil" > > > > > >>As I've mentioned many times I think the answer is to have an official > >>case book that accompanies the Laws. It's terribly difficult to craft > >>laws in a way that will be absolutely clear to all. > >>____________________________________________________________________ > >> > >>Having spend hundred hours on writing material (flow charts, articles > >>and other such things) to explain bridge laws since 10 years, I fully > >>agree. The most important lack is examples or cases. The only law > >>that have such "official" thing is Law 75. It is highly risky for > >>a single author to venture in this "Boite de Pandore". > >> > > > > Have you seen the "Commentary" issued in 1992? It is a 390 pages > > A4-sized book, and most of it is still valuable on the laws of 1997. > > > > I do appreciate the effort behind that book, I am astonished it was > > possible to write it and I just hope there might be further issues. > > > > In the meantime I think the next best thing would be to have the > > preparatory notes etc. issued with each new version of the laws. > > There I should expect to find sufficient documentation to safely > > understand the intentions of laws that themselves seem unclear. > > > > > Why don't we start a discussion group where Directors can pool > resources and learn from one another ? > Damn, I'm six years too late with that idea. > > > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 23 20:49:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NAmYf15162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:48:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NAmSH15158 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:48:29 +1000 (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 16zxdT-0006tq-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:34:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 01:58:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <003201c1e9f1$a1e4c880$a3053dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <003201c1e9f1$a1e4c880$a3053dd4@b0e7g1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen writes >I really hope I understand DWS well: > >The agreement is 4th highest. >With Q 4 the lead is Q (standard), >with Q 6 4 2 the lead is again 2, >with Q 4 2 there is a problem. > >The agreement is therefore changed in 1e, 3e, 5e and not more, fully >disclosed on the CC. >With Q 4 the lead is Q (standard), >with Q 6 4 2 the lead is Q or 4, > >is with Q 8 6 4 2 the lead really free to be Q, 6 or 2? Seems a pointless agreement to me. Do people really play this? I know people are trying to be difficult over this, but I do not see why. You have normal agreements whereby you describe a lead as something: why does 1st, 3rd and 5th mean you make ridiculous choices while 2nd and 4th means you make sensible choices? If you really think that a pair playing 1st, 3rd and 5th will lead the Q from Q8642 then I doubt you should be playing bridge. That is just as sensible as John's Ace, 3rd and 5th, a very normal agreement in England: do you really believe that a pair playing it is going to lead the 2 from AKQJ2? I am not suggesting that a pair playing 1st, 3rd and 5th are acting completely stupidly, while pairs playing other leads act with commonsense, and I cannot imagine what I have said that means you have such a lack of respect for such pairs. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 23 21:35:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NBYrM15185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:34:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NBYlH15181 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:34:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1353.bb.online.no [80.212.213.73]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA13994; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:23:12 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005001c1eab9$41531da0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" References: <000c01c1ea47$813b2880$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CC4FD66.3060203@village.uunet.be> <008001c1eaae$6f7a9c40$f9033dd4@b0e7g1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws - Law 1 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:23:12 +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: "Ben Schelen" > During May 2002: > Laws 1-5 to start with. > > > Why don't we start a discussion group where Directors can pool > > resources and learn from one another ? > > Damn, I'm six years too late with that idea. OK, let me start with Law 1, one question that has been raised and where some arguments really have surprised me: If at a table we discover that we have played a board containing two deuces of clubs and no threes; according to the commentary from 1992 "no result is ever to be considered valid". Shall it matter how that board happened to become distorted? Does it make any difference if a player has lost a card on the floor and when looking for it finds - not that card, but a similar card lost from another board? I once directed a competition where it was clear that the pack had been distorted ever since it was prepared (actually by myself at my home). Of course I cancelled the board with A+ both ways. There may be reasons to blame somebody for the distortion, but nowhere in the laws do I find any foundation for ruling that the result of the board shall stand as if the extraneous deuce (as determined from records or whatever) had all the time been a three. The fact is that each player in complying with law 7 has verified the correctness of their hand to the best of their ability, and only when the duplication of the deuces was finally discovered were they able to discover that the pack did not conform to the specifications given in Law 1. Any disagreement about that? (There may be more to follow!) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 23 22:07:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NC7Z815218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:07:35 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NC7UH15214 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:07:30 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id NAA09563; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:53:22 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id NAA11269; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:55:58 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020423121753.00a08bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:26:53 +0200 To: karel@esatclear.ie, From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 appeals In-Reply-To: <3cc35bd9.6dc.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 01:39 22/04/2002 +0100, Karel wrote: >1st one > >Pairs nil all Dealer East > > North > S JTxxx > H x > D QJxxx > C Tx >West East >S Q9xx S x >H A32 H KJT9xx >D AKxx D x >C 9x South C KQxxx > S AKx > H Q8x > D Txx > C AJ8x > >Bidding E S W N > 1H P 1S DBL(1) > 2C P 3H P > 4H all pass > >(1) the double was not alerted. see below > > > >South led the SAK ruffed. Declarer now "placed" N with the >remaining high cards and played HK, HA. C to Q and ace. QH, Diamond - 1. >At no time until the hand was over did declarer ask the meaning of norths >double. > >N/S played the double as lead directional. At the end of the hand East >enquired to the meaning of North's double and when told it was lead >directional as opposed to the normal other 2 suits he called the td >and stated he would have played the hand differently had he got the correct > >information. He claimed he would not have drawn 2 trumps but one only with > >the ace and played for a club ruff. > >The td ruled MI and adjusted the score to 4H making. East was a top player. > >N/s appealed. your decision. AG : havign been given the correct explanation, it is possible that declarer would have found the right line of play. According to L12, this is enough to adjust the score (given, of course, that this double was alertable. In Belgium, it would be) >2nd one > >Teams Dealer East Vul all > > North > S x > H Jx > D AKxxx > C Axxxx >West East >S xxx S KJTxx >H A9xxx H Qxx >D 9x D QJT8x >C Qxx South C - > S AQ7x > H Kxx > D x > C KTxxx > >Bidding E S W N > 2S(1) P 3S(2) P(3) > 4S(4) Dbl(5) all pass > >(1) 5 spades 5+ minor 6-10, alerted >(2) barrage >(3) Asked for meaning of the 2S bid. > disputed subsequent pause but say about 2 seconds >(4) thought 3S was invitational >(5) South assumed a normal barrage auction - could place north with some > values, figured east had diamonds and planned to pump him with clubs. > he counted 3 tricks in his hand and 1/2 in pds. > >West called the td after the hand was over and stated that he felt south >had doubled on norths questions and pausing. South stated that north was >entitled to ask the meaning of a bid and that norths subsequent bidding was > >completely in tempo. E/w disputed this. South felt that regardless of Norths > >actions, he had a clearcut double - trumps behind declarer +1 or both outside > >kings. North on the auction was marked with values making the double a >standout. AG :North's question-then-pass creates UI. South is not allowed to be especially clever after the UI. Pass is a LA. However ... However, if East has given the wrong explanation, North's pass could have been caused by the axplanation (could he possibly have bid 3NT-for-minors over a preemptive 3S). Thus : 1) if there was MI, this infraction might well have caused NS's problems, and they didn't make any egregious error. Correct the score to 5C making, the plausible result if North acts. 2) If there wasn't, treat the case as UI and correct to 4S -3 undoubled. 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 Apr 23 22:46:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NCkJX15330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:46:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NCkDH15326 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:46:13 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3NCYhH27141 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:34:43 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Apr 23 14:30:53 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGWN2NP4PI001WG3@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:33:52 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:33:31 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:34:49 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > > > The Director is given this same power in the 1997 > > > Laws and no fresh advice was given, that I recall or find > > > in my papers, by the WBFLC. So I believe the 1987 > > > advice remains good. > > > > That seems too easy to me. When changing laws not > > discussing the consequences of that should not > > automatically lead to the conclusion that previous > > interpretations remain the same. > > > +=+ Would you not think it bizarre to suggest that where a > Law is unchanged, as is the case with 27B1(b), the advice > that has held good for years, and with nothing fresh said, > is suddenly trashed? You apparently missed some essential parts of the discussion. L16C2 has been changed in '97 and L27B1 therefore needed a clarification which was done by adding the referene to L16C2 telling it doesn't apply. Which as I noticed during this discussion still gives people, you included, the possibility to say that L16C2 does apply. If such case doesn't need an interpretation what does? Is it your argument that all the work > of the committee in previous years is dismantled at each > Review of the Laws, or indeed on some other occasion, > unless (as we did with score adjustment on 30 August 98) > the committee acting as such announces a change of > policy?. +=+ No it isn't. But when these discrepancies become apparent don't you think it wise to consider a wise statement from the LC? > > > > > As to whether such > > > guidance should be said to have the force > > > of law, I would doubt, no matter who is giving it; > > > the Laws put the judgement unequivocally into > > > the hands of the Director on each occasion, and > > > it is the appeals committee that is responsible > > > for oversight of the Director's exercise of his > > > power of judgement. What I would say is that the > > > right for the Director to judge that 27B1(b) > > > applies is there, worldwide, for him to use and > > > the Law places no restraint upon his use of it. > > ~ G ~ > +=+ > > > > > This really sounds amazing to me. No TD should > > have the power to give his own interpretation to laws, > > nor should any AC have that right. The laws should be > > clear in the application and if they are not the LC > > should give an universal interpretation to be followed. > > Your description makes it possible to have changing > > opinions and decisions in identical situations even by > > one TD or one AC. That sounds horrible. > > > +=+ Not nearly so horrible, I suggest, as the thought of > the Laws Committee arrogantly thinking it had some > right to control the exercise by the Director and the > Appeals Committee of the authority expressly given to > them in the Laws to make bridge judgements. I am not talking about bridge judgement here, and you could have known that. We have TD's who think that after 1H - 1H (2H)opening bidder should pass with just an opening call, ignoring what is said in L27B1 and there are some who think that opening bidder is not restricted in his choices in any way, leaving the application of L27B2 to special cases in which the insufficient call gave the offending side an advantage, causing damage to its opponents. That is not bridge judgement, that is lack of common interpretation of the laws. And I described my opinion that the consequences of such situation are horrible. That > sounds just like the outmoded concept that the Director > is merely some kind of puppet who makes rulings > automatically and is not to be trusted to exercise the > discretionary powers that the laws give to him to form > opinions and act upon them. It is a pity to see my arguments abused this way. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 23 23:56:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NDtaJ15372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:55:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail50.fg.online.no ([148.122.161.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NDtUH15368 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:55:31 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2436.bb.online.no [80.212.217.132]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA11192 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:43:55 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:43:54 +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: "Kooijman, A > > +=+ Would you not think it bizarre to suggest that where a > > Law is unchanged, as is the case with 27B1(b), the advice > > that has held good for years, and with nothing fresh said, > > is suddenly trashed? > > You apparently missed some essential parts of the discussion. L16C2 has been > changed in '97 and L27B1 therefore needed a clarification which was done by > adding the referene to L16C2 telling > it doesn't apply. Which as I noticed during this discussion still gives > people, you included, the possibility to say that L16C2 does apply. If such > case doesn't need an interpretation what does? Doesn't it strike you as curious: Before 1997 Law 16C2 apparently explicitly made the information from an insufficient bid authorized once such bid had been replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination. In 1997 Law 16C2 was changed to make that information (from the insufficient bid) unauthorized but at the same time Law 27B1(a) was changed to state that Law 16C2 does not apply when a case is ruled under law 27B1. However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so many words but certainly to that effect. What is the interpretation needed now that we have managed very well without for 27 years with an essentially unchanged 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 Wed Apr 24 00:11:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NEB5d15393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:11:05 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NEAxH15385 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:11:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id PAA05547; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:58:11 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA05184; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:59:28 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020423160304.00a7e640@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:05:14 +0200 To: "Todd Zimnoch" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? 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 13:41 19/04/2002 -0700, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: David Stevenson >> They have fully disclosed their agreement which seems to be to lead >>the 1st, 3rd or 5th card. That is their agreement: that is what they >>do: that is what they did. WTP? > > The problem is that there's additional information that helps them > decide whether to lead 1st, 3rd, or 5th. Have you determined that this > information need not be disclosed? AG : it has to be dislosed, *if* it exists. The evidence we've seen until now doesn't hint that it exists. Quite to the contrary, the player's response hereabove seems to mean that they have no firm agreement as to whether they lead the 6 or the 2 (or perhaps they do it at random). If this is right, you can't expect them to tell more, because they don't know more. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 00:20:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NEJtr15405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:19:55 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NEJnH15401 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:19:50 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47879.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.7]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.17) with ESMTP id g3NE64b20453 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:06:04 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CC56A8C.2070208@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:07:08 +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 - direct question References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$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: "Kooijman, A > >>>+=+ Would you not think it bizarre to suggest that where a >>>Law is unchanged, as is the case with 27B1(b), the advice >>>that has held good for years, and with nothing fresh said, >>>is suddenly trashed? >>> >>You apparently missed some essential parts of the discussion. L16C2 has >> > been > >>changed in '97 and L27B1 therefore needed a clarification which was done >> > by > >>adding the referene to L16C2 telling >>it doesn't apply. Which as I noticed during this discussion still gives >>people, you included, the possibility to say that L16C2 does apply. If >> > such > >>case doesn't need an interpretation what does? >> > > Doesn't it strike you as curious: Before 1997 Law 16C2 apparently > explicitly made the information from an insufficient bid authorized > once such bid had been replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination. > > In 1997 Law 16C2 was changed to make that information (from > the insufficient bid) unauthorized but at the same time Law 27B1(a) > was changed to state that Law 16C2 does not apply when a case > is ruled under law 27B1. > > However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to > Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one > year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information > from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so > many words but certainly to that effect. > > What is the interpretation needed now that we have managed very > well without for 27 years with an essentially unchanged law? > Exactly, the law has been left unchanged. Before 1997, L16 itself said it did not apply. Since 1997, that has gone, and now L27 says L16 does not apply. No change there. L16 does not apply. Partner is not restricted by UI. So the only question that is left is whether opponents are damaged by the information of the IB. Not by the change of call, not by the non-existent L16 restrictions, not by the information that 2He now means heart support with opening strength, but merely by the fact that responder has shown opening strength. Since he was surely able to show this strength in a normal auction, opponents were (IMO) not damaged by this information. I do reallize that the commentary gives an example where showing opening strength does damage to the opponents, but I do not think that this is always the case. Nor is it here. > Sven > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 00:35:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NEZVI15421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:35:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NEZQH15417 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:35:26 +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 KAA11240 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA28000 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:23:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:23:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to > Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one > year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information > from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so > many words but certainly to that effect. This interpretation is far from unanimous, as surely everyone should see from the current thread. Let's try a new example, one that should appeal to Sven because it is Kaplan's own (at least as I understand it). Suppose there's an opening 1S bid and an insufficient 1C overcall, corrected to 2C. This pair plays light overcalls, but advancer "shrewdly guesses" that overcaller has opening values, and they reach a good contract they probably would not have reached without the IB. Now all of us will adjust the score under L27B1b. (I suppose some will use 72B1, but we couldn't have done that before 1997.) What will we adjust to? Isn't it the probable/at all likely results after the 1S opening bid and before the 1C IB? The point, of course, is that advancer has done nothing wrong by "using" the information conveyed by the IB. *In contrast to the normal UI situation*, it is the *giving* of the information, not the using, that is the infraction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 00:48:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NElen15438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:47:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NElYH15434 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:47:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3NEZbH07773 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:35:37 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Apr 23 16:31:41 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGWRB2K120001WKB@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:35:11 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:34:50 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:36:15 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Sven Pran'" , 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 > > > +=+ Would you not think it bizarre to suggest that where a > > > Law is unchanged, as is the case with 27B1(b), the advice > > > that has held good for years, and with nothing fresh said, > > > is suddenly trashed? ton: > > You apparently missed some essential parts of the > discussion. L16C2 has > been > > changed in '97 and L27B1 therefore needed a clarification > which was done > by > > adding the referene to L16C2 telling > > it doesn't apply. Which as I noticed during this discussion > still gives > > people, you included, the possibility to say that L16C2 > does apply. If > such > > case doesn't need an interpretation what does? > Sven: > Doesn't it strike you as curious: Before 1997 Law 16C2 apparently > explicitly made the information from an insufficient bid authorized > once such bid had been replaced by the lowest sufficient bid in the > same denomination. > > In 1997 Law 16C2 was changed to make that information (from > the insufficient bid) unauthorized but at the same time Law 27B1(a) > was changed to state that Law 16C2 does not apply when a case > is ruled under law 27B1. > > However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to > Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one > year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information > from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so > many words but certainly to that effect. > > What is the interpretation needed now that we have managed very > well without for 27 years with an essentially unchanged law? > > Sven Who managed very well? In my mails I read about completely different interpretations around the world. Didn't you? 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 Apr 24 00:57:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NEuw515451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:56:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NEumH15447 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:56:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3NEjJH10740 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:45:19 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Apr 23 16:41:14 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGWRN4OXJQ001WKW@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:44:55 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:44:33 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:45:56 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > From: "Sven Pran" > > However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to > > Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one > > year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information > > from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so > > many words but certainly to that effect. Steve: > This interpretation is far from unanimous, as surely everyone should > see from the current thread. > > Let's try a new example, one that should appeal to Sven because it > is Kaplan's own (at least as I understand it). > > Suppose there's an opening 1S bid and an insufficient 1C overcall, > corrected to 2C. This pair plays light overcalls, but advancer > "shrewdly guesses" that overcaller has opening values, and > they reach a > good contract they probably would not have reached without > the IB. Now > all of us will adjust the score under L27B1b. (I suppose some will > use 72B1, but we couldn't have done that before 1997.) > > What will we adjust to? Isn't it the probable/at all likely results > after the 1S opening bid and before the 1C IB? The point, of course, > is that advancer has done nothing wrong by "using" the information > conveyed by the IB. *In contrast to the normal UI situation*, it is > the *giving* of the information, not the using, that is the > infraction. Well, we agree. But I wouldn't even call it an infraction. The IB is of course, but even giving the information arising from it,is not. This is not a non-issue because the adusted score, if the TD has to give one, depends on it. I tend to give such score based on both sides being innocent, but there I might be convinced to change my mind. 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 Apr 24 01:35:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NFYp315481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:34:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NFYkH15477 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:34:47 +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 LAA15032 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA28055 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:23:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:23:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204231523.LAA28055@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > But I wouldn't even call it an infraction. The IB is of > course, but even giving the information arising from it,is not. This is not > a non-issue because the adusted score, if the TD has to give one, depends on > it. I tend to give such score based on both sides being innocent, but there > I might be convinced to change my mind. Interesting! Yes, it is certainly an issue: the difference between "most favorable result that was likely" and "most unfavorable result that was at all probable" in L12C2. Until Ton's comment, I would have lumped the IB and all information it conveys into a single infraction and treated the IB'er side as offending for any adjustment. However, I don't see that the text of the laws forbids Ton's approach of separating the IB from the information it conveys, so if the LC decides to issue an interpretation, it should address this point as well. (My personal preference, FWIW, is still to consider the IB'er side as offending.) Another point not to overlook is whether L27B1b can be applied after a penalty under L27B2. I don't see why it shouldn't be: the headers are not part of the laws. But others disagree, so if there's to be an official interpretation, it should address this point as well. Grattan: notes for the drafting committee? Even if no official interpretation is issued now, maybe those writing the next Laws edition will wish to consider rephrasing. Of course there's the whole question too of simplification and of separating mechanical and information penalties. P.S. please put me down as agreeing with Richard Hill's comments: insofar as possible, ambiguous and unclear language should be eliminated from the Laws. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 01:55:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NFsDr15501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:54:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NFs7H15497 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:54:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.41.22] (helo=pacific) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1702Qp-0003P6-00; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:42:16 +0100 Message-ID: <003701c1eadd$6e118b00$1629e150@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:40:12 +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 Grattan Endicott To: "'Grattan Endicott'" ; Sent: 23 April 2002 13:34 Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > > You apparently missed some essential parts of the > discussion. L16C2 has been changed in '97 and > L27B1 therefore needed a clarification which was > done by adding the referene to L16C2 telling > it doesn't apply. Which as I noticed during this > discussion still gives people, you included, the > possibility to say that L16C2 does apply. If such > case doesn't need an interpretation what does? > +=+ I have not mentioned 16C2 here. What I say is that 27B1(b) does apply. It remains as part of the laws. It was not taken away as it would have been if it were no longer part of them. The fact that something is not applicable in (a) does not make it inapplicable in (b). +=+ > ------------------ \x/ --------------- > But when these discrepancies become apparent > don't you think it wise to consider a wise statement > from the LC? > +=+ I consider it right to follow any statement from the LC upon the interpretation of a law , whether it is wise or not being irrelevant once the committee speaks. The WBFLC has made no fresh statement on 27B1(b), so as yet there is nothing to follow - except that so long as 27B1(b) remains law we have the earlier guidance under Kaplan on it. +=+ > > > > > > +=+ Not nearly so horrible, I suggest, as the thought of > > the Laws Committee arrogantly thinking it had some > > right to control the exercise by the Director and the > > Appeals Committee of the authority expressly given to > > them in the Laws to make bridge judgements. > > I am not talking about bridge judgement here, and you > could have known that. > +=+ I thought you were replying to my remark that " the Laws put the judgement unequivocally into the hands of the Director on each occasion, and it is the appeals committee that is responsible for oversight of the Director's exercise of his power of judgement. What I would say is that the right for the Director to judge that 27B1(b) applies is there, worldwide, for him to use and the Law places no restraint upon his use of it. " > ---------------------- \x/ -------------------- > > It is a pity to see my arguments abused this way. > +=+ I am sorry you think it abuse when I read what you say and say plainly enough that I think you are wrong, and state my reasons. If in doing so I have misunderstood your words that is unfortunate, but it is not abuse. I do repeat, however, that the function of the Laws Committee is to set the Laws, and to interpret the meaning of the Laws. The function of applying that meaning to the circumstances of an incident does not lie within the remit of the Laws Committee but lies with the Director and the Appeals Committee. Our minutes record the objective of "separating out the concerns of the committee from those of other bodies, avoiding trespass in other areas of responsibility" and it is with this aim that I am engaged. ~ 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 Apr 24 01:56:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NFu3Q15513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:56:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from wonka.esatclear.ie (wonka.esatclear.ie [194.145.128.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NFtwH15509 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:55:58 +1000 (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 QAA21377 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:44:24 +0100 From: "Karel" Reply-to: karel@esatclear.ie To: Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:44:24 +0100 Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 appeals X-Mailer: CWMail Web to Mail Gateway 2.8a, http://netwinsite.com/top_mail.htm Message-id: <3cc58158.62ab.0@esatclear.ie> X-User-Info: 194.125.205.29 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 - inline ...] >>1st one >> >>Pairs nil all Dealer East >> >> North >> S JTxxx >> H x >> D QJxxx >> C Tx >>West East >>S Q9xx S x >>H A32 H KJT9xx >>D AKxx D x >>C 9x South C KQxxx >> S AKx >> H Q8x >> D Txx >> C AJ8x >> >>Bidding E S W N >> 1H P 1S DBL(1) >> 2C P 3H P >> 4H all pass >> >>(1) the double was not alerted. see below >AG : havign been given the correct explanation, it is possible that >declarer would have found the right line of play. According to L12, this is enough to adjust the score (given, of course, that this double was alertable. In Belgium, it would be) [Karel - I know that if the double was penalties !! it is not alertable. If it shows the other 2 suits it is alertable. Lead directional double of a natural bid at the 1 level, to me is equivalent to a penalty double (ie) must have spades or else the opps redouble and stay there. Brian/Ferghal can you help out on this one ??. So I would be forced to assume spades with no alert unusual as this is. The bone of contention I have with this ruling is as follows. GIVEN the level of the player, 4H is absolutely stone cold assuming the hearts 22/or 3/1 and even some 4/0 so long as you do NOT draw 2 rounds of trumps. You simply play a heart to the ace and a club to the Q - defenders cannot stop you ruffing a club in dummy. I felt after the gift lead of the SAK that NOT making 4H is "not playing bridge". To moan afterwards about some nebulous alert which makes NO difference to the correct line of play, after you made a dogs dinner of it, ... is trying to get your score back IMO. To be honest any top player would be embarassed at how this hand was played and even with no bidding at all should get it right. >>2nd one >> >>Teams Dealer East Vul all >> >> North >> S x >> H Jx >> D AKxxx >> C Axxxx >>West East >>S xxx S KJTxx >>H A9xxx H Qxx >>D 9x D QJT8x >>C Qxx South C - >> S AQ7x >> H Kxx >> D x >> C KTxxx >> >>Bidding E S W N >> 2S(1) P 3S(2) P(3) >> 4S(4) Dbl(5) all pass >> >>(1) 5 spades 5+ minor 6-10, alerted >>(2) barrage >>(3) Asked for meaning of the 2S bid. >> disputed subsequent pause but say about 2 seconds >>(4) thought 3S was invitational [Karel - Call me gullible but you are allowed and in quite alot of cases are recommended to ask the meaning of a bid, whether or not you intend to bid, to allow yourself more time to build up a picture of the opposing distribution and points for the purposes of competitive bidding OR likely defense. How just asking about a bid imparts UI is a new one for me. What UI exactly did south get from North's question ?? The question of a Contested 2 second pause ... the auction goes 2S P 3S - you ask the meaning of the bid and on recieving this information digest it, figure out probable distributions etc etc and then bid. To me, 2 seconds is normal if infact somewhat quick to do this in. To suggest 2 seconds is a pause is just extrodinary. I'm not losing my objectivity here - but N/S refused to acknowledge a pause and eventually conceeded to an absolute maximum 2 second delay after West answered the question. E/W claimed there was a "short" pause. In cases like this where one side refuses to acknowledge a pause and the other claims a negligable pause - I would strongly favour comming down on a normal tempo auction especially if the auction is pre-emptive in nature. Finally the double. Undoubtedly pass is a LA, pass normally is but I would wager that the vast majority of souths on this hand would wack 4S's and IMO rightly so. To pass on this auction with the south hand given some of the garbage players these days open with and further barrage with, not to mind the unlikely nature of the auction is IMO pretty much insane. Given no UI + a "normal" tempo auction + a stand out double hand I find it difficult to see how we can rule 4S-3 undoubled. Infact this ruling would give E/W a swing of 3/4 imps (5C's makes) because N asked the meaning of a bid ??? Pls note that N asked WEST about the 2S opener NOT E about the 3S bid. Tartan 2's are a very common treatment in Ireland and 3S as barrage is the norm. Infact 3S NOT as barrage would probably need to be alterted - once again Ferghal or Brian may clarify ?? ] -- 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 Apr 24 02:31:02 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NGUga15536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:30:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NGUaH15532 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 02:30:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47879.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.59.7]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.17) with ESMTP id g3NGIhb24371 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:18:44 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CC589A3.6010208@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:19:47 +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 - new example References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I would like to add to Steve's example, because it does point us in the right direction: Steve Willner wrote: > > Let's try a new example, one that should appeal to Sven because it > is Kaplan's own (at least as I understand it). > > Suppose there's an opening 1S bid and an insufficient 1C overcall, > corrected to 2C. This pair plays light overcalls, but advancer > "shrewdly guesses" that overcaller has opening values, and they reach a > good contract they probably would not have reached without the IB. Now > all of us will adjust the score under L27B1b. (I suppose some will > use 72B1, but we couldn't have done that before 1997.) > Let's add that in the offender's system, 2Cl is natural (of course, or it would not be allowed) but rather light, while 3Cl is Ghestem, and 4Cl something else again. Now the only true way that, in a normal auction, offender can show opening values is by first doubling. Suppose that the auction goes (other people please adjust my example if you believe there to be even better ones): 1Sp 1Cl 2Cl 4Sp 5Cl Now we might rule that the information helped offenders (so caused damage to non-offenders). Indeed without the insufficient bid the bidding would have been: 1Sp X 4Sp ??? if offenders are playing acol, the extra information that there are certainly 4Cl with overcaller might be enough to pull partner over the hill. Maybe even that is not enough of an example. > What will we adjust to? Isn't it the probable/at all likely results > after the 1S opening bid and before the 1C IB? The point, of course, > is that advancer has done nothing wrong by "using" the information > conveyed by the IB. *In contrast to the normal UI situation*, it is > the *giving* of the information, not the using, that is the > infraction. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 03:06:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NH6Lc15569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:06:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NH6EH15565 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:06:15 +1000 (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 1703Yr-0003Qb-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:54:44 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 14:48:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 2 appeals References: <3cc35bd9.6dc.0@esatclear.ie> <5.1.0.14.0.20020423121753.00a08bd0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020423121753.00a08bd0@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 01:39 22/04/2002 +0100, Karel wrote: >>1st one >> >>Pairs nil all Dealer East >> >> North >> S JTxxx >> H x >> D QJxxx >> C Tx >>West East >>S Q9xx S x >>H A32 H KJT9xx >>D AKxx D x >>C 9x South C KQxxx >> S AKx >> H Q8x >> D Txx >> C AJ8x >> >>Bidding E S W N >> 1H P 1S DBL(1) >> 2C P 3H P >> 4H all pass >> >>(1) the double was not alerted. see below >> >> >> >>South led the SAK ruffed. Declarer now "placed" N with the >>remaining high cards and played HK, HA. C to Q and ace. QH, Diamond - 1. >>At no time until the hand was over did declarer ask the meaning of norths >>double. >> >>N/S played the double as lead directional. At the end of the hand East >>enquired to the meaning of North's double and when told it was lead >>directional as opposed to the normal other 2 suits he called the td >>and stated he would have played the hand differently had he got the correct >> >>information. He claimed he would not have drawn 2 trumps but one only with >> >>the ace and played for a club ruff. >> >>The td ruled MI and adjusted the score to 4H making. East was a top player. >> >>N/s appealed. your decision. > >AG : havign been given the correct explanation, it is possible that >declarer would have found the right line of play. According to L12, this is >enough to adjust the score (given, of course, that this double was >alertable. In Belgium, it would be) We could give him a percentage of it making via L12C3. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 03:06:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NH6c215575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:06:38 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f35.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.35]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NH6WH15571 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 03:06:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:54:59 -0700 Received: from 204.52.135.62 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 16:54:59 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.52.135.62] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:54:59 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Apr 2002 16:54:59.0585 (UTC) FILETIME=[9AA3B710:01C1EAE7] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >To: "bridge-laws::.gov.au":"rgb.anu.edu.au:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> >Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws >Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:31:59 +1000 >Tim wrote (in the thread Psychs and the rule of 18): > >[big snip] > > >What I deeply resent, and prattle on about in the > >vain hope that someone, somewhere is listening, is > >the fact that nobody *reading* the current laws > >would have any hope of arriving at the > >*interpretations* issued by the WBF. I have spent some time reading the law and then making conclusions [based solely on the text and my experience] what the law says about the game. Not that my conclusions necessarily coincide with what was in the minds of the lawmakers. For instance, what I get from reading L27B1 is that bridge is a game about what can be done with the cards. Why draw that conclusion? What other reason would there be for giving a player two chances in one rotation [providing his partner information that he would not get in the turn that was allotted] except to allow the pair to use the extra information in search of what the cards will produce. To my mind it is not interesting to have a game about what can be done with the cards. Recognizing what can be done with the cards is a skill which can be incorporated in making judgements about what To Do with the cards. Now- that is what I think is interesting- how humans actually solve what to do with 52 pasteboards and 15 words of bidding- knowing that those pasteboards can come to them in over one-half trillion ways. To be practical, writing law to facilitate players achieving what the cards can do creates a very complicated business. And also produces a game that is not interesting enough to hold my attention. In order to write law that is 'simple' necessitates having a focus on the nature of the game. Without that focus it is a futile task to solve the problems of players- at least in a simple way. regards roger pewick > >The lack of > >transparency between the written law and its > >application is huge - and yes I have the temerity > >to claim that lack of transparency is a bad thing. >Richard _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 05:59:52 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NJxEj15672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 05:59:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NJx9H15668 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 05:59:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2307.bb.online.no [80.212.217.3]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA08384 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:47:33 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000901c1eaff$b64dda00$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CC56A8C.2070208@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:47:32 +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" > Exactly, the law has been left unchanged. > Before 1997, L16 itself said it did not apply. > Since 1997, that has gone, and now L27 says L16 does not apply. > No change there. > L16 does not apply. > Partner is not restricted by UI. > > So the only question that is left is whether opponents are damaged by > the information of the IB. > Not by the change of call, not by the non-existent L16 restrictions, > not by the information that 2He now means heart support with opening > strength, but merely by the fact that responder has shown opening > strength. > Since he was surely able to show this strength in a normal auction, > opponents were (IMO) not damaged by this information. > > I do reallize that the commentary gives an example where showing > opening strength does damage to the opponents, but I do not think that > this is always the case. Nor is it here. Then why was the interpretation before 2001 that damage normally would exist when the insufficient bid conveyed essential information not also conveyed by the replacement bid and offender's partner made use of this (extra) information to his advantage? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 06:14:23 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NKEAP15693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:14:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NKE4H15689 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:14:05 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2307.bb.online.no [80.212.217.3]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA28879 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:02:29 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001701c1eb01$cc3b0840$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:02:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > > However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to > > Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one > > year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information > > from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so > > many words but certainly to that effect. > > This interpretation is far from unanimous, as surely everyone should > see from the current thread. I did not say it is unanimous, I said it was, as far as I know unanimous until one year ago, and so far I have not seen anybody disputing this. > > Let's try a new example, one that should appeal to Sven because it > is Kaplan's own (at least as I understand it). > > Suppose there's an opening 1S bid and an insufficient 1C overcall, > corrected to 2C. This pair plays light overcalls, but advancer > "shrewdly guesses" that overcaller has opening values, and they reach a > good contract they probably would not have reached without the IB. Now > all of us will adjust the score under L27B1b. (I suppose some will > use 72B1, but we couldn't have done that before 1997.) I would like to see what kind of defence system makes it impossible to show opening values in second hand after the opener? Must be a very poor system? Unless I am completely mistaken all your argumentation above depends upon the existence of such an inferior defence system. > > What will we adjust to? Isn't it the probable/at all likely results > after the 1S opening bid and before the 1C IB? The point, of course, > is that advancer has done nothing wrong by "using" the information > conveyed by the IB. *In contrast to the normal UI situation*, it is > the *giving* of the information, not the using, that is the > infraction. With your interpretation of L27B1 you are in a terrible problem if you decide to use L27B1(b) and adjust the score. You should never find any damage provided the agreements on the offending side hold a certain minimum standard so that they do not depend upon an insufficient bid to show their values. It is no infraction to accidently give UI, what is an infraction is to make use of it. (And of course to intentionally give 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 Wed Apr 24 06:18:51 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NKIiv15705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:18:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NKIcH15701 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:18:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2307.bb.online.no [80.212.217.3]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA21244 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:07:03 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001d01c1eb02$6f985240$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:07:03 +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: "Kooijman, A." > Well, we agree. But I wouldn't even call it an infraction. The IB is of > course, but even giving the information arising from it,is not. This is not > a non-issue because the adusted score, if the TD has to give one, depends on > it. I tend to give such score based on both sides being innocent, but there > I might be convinced to change my mind. Ridiculous. How can both sides be innocent if an infraction by one side at the table (insufficient bid) eventually makes it necessary to assign an adjusted score? (Except when there is a director error) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 06:27:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NKRVg15718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:27:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NKRPH15714 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:27:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2307.bb.online.no [80.212.217.3]) by mail45.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA28404 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:15:50 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002301c1eb03$a9ea0500$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204231523.LAA28055@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:15:50 +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: "Steve Willner" > Another point not to overlook is whether L27B1b can be applied after > a penalty under L27B2. I don't see why it shouldn't be: the headers > are not part of the laws. But others disagree, so if there's to be > an official interpretation, it should address this point as well. Please try to be serious! L27B1(b) is specifically addressed from L27B1(a), it applies only when offender's partner has had an opportunity to make a call other than pass subsequent to an insufficient bid; obviously for the purpose of protecting the non-offending side from damage caused by this opportunity. Nowhere in the laws do you find restrictions to both members of a pair after one of them causes an irregularity during the auction. So why should there be any restriction on offenders call once his partner must pass? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 06:30:07 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NKU1Z15730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:30:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NKTtH15726 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:29:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2307.bb.online.no [80.212.217.3]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA16764 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:18:21 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002b01c1eb04$0373c5c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:18:20 +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: "Kooijman, A." > > However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to > > Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one > > year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information > > from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so > > many words but certainly to that effect. > > > > What is the interpretation needed now that we have managed very > > well without for 27 years with an essentially unchanged law? > > > > Sven > > > > Who managed very well? In my mails I read about completely different > interpretations around the world. Didn't you? > > ton Not until 2001 Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 06:53:37 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NKrQm15748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:53:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NKrLH15744 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 06:53:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.58.205] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17076C-0003kY-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:41:16 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c1eb07$73cb8260$cd3ae150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <000c01c1ea47$813b2880$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws - fear of the ridiculus mus. Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:38:51 +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: Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws > > Have you seen the "Commentary" issued in 1992? It is a > 390 pages A4-sized book, and most of it is still valuable > on the laws of 1997. > > I do appreciate the effort behind that book, I am astonished it > was possible to write it and I just hope there might be further > issues. > +=+ You are kind. Bent was a tremendous support, but there was a factor also in those days that was especially helpful: the EBL Laws Committee was undivided as to the effects of the Laws and we had a relationship with Edgar that was one of consultation - he talked through his positions patiently and was flexible in accommodating our positions. (Whether this meant he did not pursue some occasions when the EBL did not match to his line in the ACBL I do not know.) We have talked about a further edition of the Commentary but the finance for it did not materialise. Now we must wait to see what the current review produces. +=+ > > In the meantime I think the next best thing would be to have the > preparatory notes etc. issued with each new version of the laws. > There I should expect to find sufficient documentation to safely > understand the intentions of laws that themselves seem unclear. > +=+ The seasons are uncertain. The 'good' is that everyone agrees that the words in which the laws are written this time must be simple and unequivocal. Achievement of that will not be easy; the first step will be to know what we want the laws to say - and if we manage to agree that, the words may then prove to be a real stumbling block since we have struggled at times to agree how to read basic English. My hope is that by starting afresh where Edgar left us with inferences and conflicts in the Laws, we may find language with a sharper cutting edge. Failure in the exercise will be marked by the need to explain what is not self-explanatory, whether to the world at large or, sadly, to each other. ~ 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 Apr 24 07:40:09 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NLdmL15776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:39:48 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NLdhH15772 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:39:43 +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 RAA08649 for ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:28:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA28300 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:28:13 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:28:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204232128.RAA28300@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Then why was the interpretation before 2001 that damage normally would > exist when the insufficient bid conveyed essential information not also > conveyed by the replacement bid and offender's partner made use of this > (extra) information to his advantage? Not everyone agrees that this was the interpretation before 2001. In particular, the "not also conveyed by the replacement bid" always was and remains very much in question. I should have thought that was obvious. > I did not say it is unanimous, I said it was, as far as I know unanimous > until one year ago, and so far I have not seen anybody disputing this. I think all of us agree that there were no significant changes in 1997. The disagreement is precisely about what the rules were prior to then. I cannot imagine why anyone would think there would have been unanimous agreement a year or ten ago. > I would like to see what kind of defence system makes it impossible to > show opening values in second hand after the opener? Must be a very > poor system? Someone else already gave an example: overcall denies opening bid values. All hands as good as an opening bid have to double. I do not recommend this system, but some people have played it. Even if such a system is never played, surely the example makes the principle clear. Several others have been given, as well. > Unless I am completely mistaken all your argumentation above depends > upon the existence of such an inferior defence system. Indeed. If overcalls are sound, my example case would not be likely to require a score adjustment. > With your interpretation of L27B1 you are in a terrible problem if > you decide to use L27B1(b) and adjust the score. You should never > find any damage provided the agreements on the offending side hold > a certain minimum standard so that they do not depend upon an > insufficient bid to show their values. The second sentence is correct. I fail to see why it's a "terrible problem." If there's no damage, there's no score adjustment. I think that's a good thing. Not every infraction needs to be punished with a bad score. > It is no infraction to accidently give UI, what is an infraction is to make > use of it. (And of course to intentionally give UI) What makes you think there is UI after an IB? Even when the Laws say the opposite (prior to 1997) and are silent (now)? > Please try to be serious! I am quite serious. Apologies if I am being unclear. I was hoping to stop posting to this thread. > L27B1(b) is specifically addressed from L27B1(a), As we know, headers are not part of the Laws. Laws apply when their conditions are met. > it applies only > when offender's partner has had an opportunity to make a call other > than pass subsequent to an insufficient bid; Not, for example, a play? Doesn't a side that makes an IB sometimes end up on defense? Even after L27B2? > Nowhere in the laws do you find restrictions to both members of a > pair after one of them causes an irregularity during the auction. So > why should there be any restriction on offenders call once his partner > must pass? Who said anything about restrictions on offender's call? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 08:01:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NM1IW15797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:01:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NM1DH15793 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:01:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 1708AS-0000lu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:49:44 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020423174307.00b2faa0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:50:10 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example In-Reply-To: <001701c1eb01$cc3b0840$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:02 PM 4/23/02, Sven wrote: >I would like to see what kind of defence system makes it impossible to >show opening values in second hand after the opener? Standard American, for one, along with all of its many offshoots and variations. In normal, routine North American bidding practice, for example, a 1S opening shows opening values at minimum, and is limited by failure to open 2C and rebid 2S (showing a strong 2-bid), while a 1S overcall shows considerably (depending on style, but invariably at least an ace or so) less at minimum, and is limited by failure to double and rebid a new suit, showing a good suit and significantly more than minimum opening values (depending on style again, but at least a king or so), but a lot less than a 2C opening. >Must be a very >poor system? Perhaps... >Unless I am completely mistaken all your argumentation above depends >upon the existence of such an inferior defence system. ...but, nevertheless, unless I'm mistaken myself, played, when all its variations are taken into account, by more bridge players worldwide than any other. Eric Landau ehaa@starpower.net 1107 Dale Drive (301) 608-0347 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 08:45:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NMixd15838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:44:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NMirH15834 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:44:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2307.bb.online.no [80.212.217.3]) by mail49.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA26366 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:33:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005301c1eb16$de3c82c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204232128.RAA28300@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:33:15 +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: "Steve Willner" > > Then why was the interpretation before 2001 that damage normally would > > exist when the insufficient bid conveyed essential information not also > > conveyed by the replacement bid and offender's partner made use of this > > (extra) information to his advantage? > > Not everyone agrees that this was the interpretation before 2001. In > particular, the "not also conveyed by the replacement bid" always was > and remains very much in question. I should have thought that was > obvious. Do you have any examples of such interpretation before 2001 on record? Not that it proves anything, but I have never heard of any such interpretation until this discussion started, and even today, if I am to judge by what I have received from my national LC my view is the same as the official view in Norway. > > > I did not say it is unanimous, I said it was, as far as I know unanimous > > until one year ago, and so far I have not seen anybody disputing this. > > I think all of us agree that there were no significant changes in > 1997. The disagreement is precisely about what the rules were prior to > then. I cannot imagine why anyone would think there would have been > unanimous agreement a year or ten ago. Simply because I/we/they have not noticed any different interpretations > > > I would like to see what kind of defence system makes it impossible to > > show opening values in second hand after the opener? Must be a very > > poor system? > > Someone else already gave an example: overcall denies opening bid > values. All hands as good as an opening bid have to double. I do > not recommend this system, but some people have played it. > > Even if such a system is never played, surely the example makes the > principle clear. Sure it makes the principle clear, but is that a probable cause for Law27B1(b)? I seriously doubt that the WBFLC had such extraordinary possibilities as a system (almost?) nobody would use in mind when they wrote that law, particularly if you go back in history and watch how the laws on insufficient bids have developed over time. > > > Unless I am completely mistaken all your argumentation above depends > > upon the existence of such an inferior defence system. > > Indeed. If overcalls are sound, my example case would not be likely > to require a score adjustment. > > > With your interpretation of L27B1 you are in a terrible problem if > > you decide to use L27B1(b) and adjust the score. You should never > > find any damage provided the agreements on the offending side hold > > a certain minimum standard so that they do not depend upon an > > insufficient bid to show their values. > > The second sentence is correct. I fail to see why it's a "terrible > problem." If there's no damage, there's no score adjustment. I think > that's a good thing. Not every infraction needs to be punished with a > bad score. Exactly, but Law27B1(b) makes no sense if the only reason for it would be a system that (almost) nobody uses. > > > It is no infraction to accidently give UI, what is an infraction is to make > > use of it. (And of course to intentionally give UI) > > What makes you think there is UI after an IB? Even when the Laws say > the opposite (prior to 1997) and are silent (now)? Unless the IB is corrected under Law27B1(a) the information from it is UI to offender's partner! > > > Please try to be serious! > > I am quite serious. Apologies if I am being unclear. I was hoping > to stop posting to this thread. > > > L27B1(b) is specifically addressed from L27B1(a), > > As we know, headers are not part of the Laws. Laws apply when their > conditions are met. The reference is in the body of Law27B1(a) and the referenced law is the body of Law27B1(b). The headers play no part here and you do not "enter" L27B1(b) unless directed to it from L27B1(a). That is the way the Laws are structured. > > > it applies only > > when offender's partner has had an opportunity to make a call other > > than pass subsequent to an insufficient bid; > > Not, for example, a play? Doesn't a side that makes an IB sometimes > end up on defense? Even after L27B2? I agree with you on this one. I considered just the auction, not the subsequent play (and I suspect WBFLC has made the same "mistake"). This strengthens my opinion that unless WBFLC wants to change an interpretation they appear to have intended at least since 1975, the best simple change could be to remove the reference to Law 16C2 from Law 27B1(a) and thereby make all information from the insufficient bid unauthorized for offender's partner. I believe such a change would definitely make Law 27B1(b) redundant, and it would remove all doubt as to what freedom offender's partner has in the continued auction (and the play). And as a final bonus: It would make Law 27 much easier to read and use! > > > Nowhere in the laws do you find restrictions to both members of a > > pair after one of them causes an irregularity during the auction. So > > why should there be any restriction on offenders call once his partner > > must pass? > > Who said anything about restrictions on offender's call? I did, considering only the auction subsequent to a Law 27B2 ruling (not the play) and your suggestion. However, after a ruling under L27B2 the information conveyed by the insufficient bid is indeed UI to offender's partner, so there should really be no problem. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 08:55:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NMtdv15854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:55:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NMtXH15850 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:55:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-2307.bb.online.no [80.212.217.3]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA08665 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:43:59 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005901c1eb18$5bd4cde0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020423174307.00b2faa0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:43:59 +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: "Eric Landau" > >I would like to see what kind of defence system makes it impossible to > >show opening values in second hand after the opener? > > Standard American, for one, along with all of its many offshoots and > variations. In normal, routine North American bidding practice, for > example, a 1S opening shows opening values at minimum, and is limited > by failure to open 2C and rebid 2S (showing a strong 2-bid), while a 1S > overcall shows considerably (depending on style, but invariably at > least an ace or so) less at minimum, and is limited by failure to > double and rebid a new suit, showing a good suit and significantly more > than minimum opening values (depending on style again, but at least a > king or so), but a lot less than a 2C opening. Are you trying to tell me that in Standard American if your RHO has opened the auction with say 1S there is no way you can make calls that tell your partner you have a: A weak opening hand b: A fair opening hand c: A strong opening hand d: etc. etc. and expect to reach a sound contract except by first making an insufficient bid showing that you have a hand worth opening in say 1H and later in the auction follow up with other calls as applicable? I don't believe that! (And I do not consider a shutout bid by your LHO in 4S as relevant in this discussion!) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 09:15:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NNExr15877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:14:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NNEsH15873 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:14:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from [62.64.141.236] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1709JD-000Jl8-00; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:02:52 +0100 Message-ID: <005b01c1eb1b$3b2c7c20$cd3ae150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Sven Pran" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <002b01c1eb04$0373c5c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 23:43:00 +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 Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > > Not until 2001 > > Sven > +=+ If ever it was to be apparent that "simple" language may still depend heavily on the reader's understanding, here is a case in point. In Law 27B1(a) take the words of one syllable "but see (b)", the use of 'but' establishes that (b) is an exception to what goes just before, is unaffected by it. As the dictionary has it: "But" = 'used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has just been said' = 'on the contrary; in contrast'. = 'except for'; 'were it not for'. ~ 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 Apr 24 09:54:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NNsOg15912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:54:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 g3NNsAH15897 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:54:11 +1000 (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 1709vf-00031F-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:42:41 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:18:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <002b01c1eb04$0373c5c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <002b01c1eb04$0373c5c0$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: "Kooijman, A." >> Who managed very well? In my mails I read about completely different >> interpretations around the world. Didn't you? >Not until 2001 We know that French and English TDs rule differently in 2002. Do you *know* they ruled the same before 2001? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 09:54:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NNsOi15913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:54:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NNs9H15895 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:54:10 +1000 (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 1709vf-00031B-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:42:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:14:27 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020423160304.00a7e640@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020423160304.00a7e640@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 13:41 19/04/2002 -0700, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>>From: David Stevenson >>> They have fully disclosed their agreement which seems to be to lead >>>the 1st, 3rd or 5th card. That is their agreement: that is what they >>>do: that is what they did. WTP? >> >> The problem is that there's additional information that helps them >> decide whether to lead 1st, 3rd, or 5th. Have you determined that this >> information need not be disclosed? > >AG : it has to be dislosed, *if* it exists. The evidence we've seen until >now doesn't hint that it exists. Quite to the contrary, the player's >response hereabove seems to mean that they have no firm agreement as to >whether they lead the 6 or the 2 (or perhaps they do it at random). If this >is right, you can't expect them to tell more, because they don't know more. The original problem is that a player led the 9 from KT9xx, and his card says 1st, 3rd and 5th. There is no evidence that anyone asked him any more questions. I have asked a few good players around here, and they all agree with me: playing 1st, 3rd and 5th the 9 is the normal card to lead. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 09:54:50 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NNsNG15911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:54:23 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3NNs9H15894 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:54:10 +1000 (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 1709ve-00031E-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:42:40 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:16:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sven Pran writes >What is the interpretation needed now that we have managed very >well without for 27 years with an essentially unchanged law? The original problem appeared when I discovered that TDs in France and TDs in England rule differently. I do not think different interpretations in different European countries qualifies as "managing very well". -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 09:54:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3NNsQ715914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:54:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3NNsBH15899 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:54:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1709vf-00031G-0a for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:42:42 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 00:26:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001701c1eb01$cc3b0840$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <001701c1eb01$cc3b0840$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: "Steve Willner" > >> > From: "Sven Pran" >> > However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to >> > Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one >> > year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information >> > from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so >> > many words but certainly to that effect. >> >> This interpretation is far from unanimous, as surely everyone should >> see from the current thread. > >I did not say it is unanimous, I said it was, as far as I know unanimous >until one year ago, and so far I have not seen anybody disputing this. There is no evidence that it was unanimous then. We know the French and English TDs rule differently: are you suggesting that one country or the other changed their views a year ago? On what evidence? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 10:18:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3O0IJx15953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:18:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3O0ICH15949 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:18:13 +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 g3O06ux20205 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:06:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:05:10 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020423160304.00a7e640@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020423160304.00a7e640@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 <5.1.0.14.0.20020423160304.00a7e640@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >At 13:41 19/04/2002 -0700, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>>From: David Stevenson >>> They have fully disclosed their agreement which seems to be to lead >>>the 1st, 3rd or 5th card. That is their agreement: that is what they >>>do: that is what they did. WTP? >> >> The problem is that there's additional information that helps them >> decide whether to lead 1st, 3rd, or 5th. Have you determined that this >> information need not be disclosed? > >AG : it has to be dislosed, *if* it exists. The evidence we've seen until >now doesn't hint that it exists. Quite to the contrary, the player's >response hereabove seems to mean that they have no firm agreement as to >whether they lead the 6 or the 2 (or perhaps they do it at random). If this >is right, you can't expect them to tell more, because they don't know more. > > No. This isn't the case. From K-empty-fifth they lead fifth and from from King-ten-nine-fifth they lead the 9. This has to be disclosed, *and wasn't*. I adjust. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 24 10:19:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3O0Jdr15971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:19:39 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3O0JWH15967 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:19:33 +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 g3O08Gx20209 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:08:16 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:06:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws References: <000c01c1ea47$813b2880$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <3CC4FD66.3060203@village.uunet.be> <008001c1eaae$6f7a9c40$f9033dd4@b0e7g1> In-Reply-To: <008001c1eaae$6f7a9c40$f9033dd4@b0e7g1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <008001c1eaae$6f7a9c40$f9033dd4@b0e7g1>, Ben Schelen writes >During May 2002: >Laws 1-5 to start with. > Don't overdo it :) > -- 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 Apr 24 10:35:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3O0Z0I15984 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:35:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3O0YsH15980 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:34:55 +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 g3O0NVx20237 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:23:36 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:21:28 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <002b01c1eb04$0373c5c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> In-Reply-To: <002b01c1eb04$0373c5c0$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 <002b01c1eb04$0373c5c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb>, Sven Pran writes >From: "Kooijman, A." >> > However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to >> > Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one >> > year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information >> > from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so >> > many words but certainly to that effect. >> > >> > What is the interpretation needed now that we have managed very >> > well without for 27 years with an essentially unchanged law? >> > >> > Sven >> >> >> >> Who managed very well? In my mails I read about completely different >> interpretations around the world. Didn't you? >> >> ton > >Not until 2001 So. .... the auction goes 1H - 2H and feeling mildly frivolous I bid 4h which makes on a 3-2, and a 2-2 break and 3 finesses. So the auction goes 1H - 2H ("O s**t! I have an opener!"). Well I guess I'd better pass with my manquee 11-count. So the auction goes 1H - (loadsa aggro with the pigs, where the AI I have is that pard has heart support, and I've no idea what the UI is) 2H. Are my LA's restricted? Israel thinks they are 100%. I'm not so sure, but I think I'd adjust in practice as I believe that there's NO way opener would know it's right to bid 4H unless he's got some sort of wire. OK. Final question: Stevenson is opener; I'm responder; and I sit there absolutely like stone while all the s**t is going on and then bid 2H. Are David's LA's restricted? 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 Apr 24 10:37:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3O0bDO15997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:37:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3O0b7H15993 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:37:07 +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 g3O0PPx20241 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:25:35 +0100 Message-ID: <0DmKc8CHsfx8Ew3n@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:23:35 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200204231423.KAA28000@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 <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Sven Pran" >> However, both before and after 1997 Law 27B1(a) referred to >> Law27B1(b) which as far as I am aware of unanimously until one >> year ago was always interpreted to the effect that the information >> from the insufficient bid was unauthorized for offenders, not in so >> many words but certainly to that effect. > >This interpretation is far from unanimous, as surely everyone should >see from the current thread. > >Let's try a new example, one that should appeal to Sven because it >is Kaplan's own (at least as I understand it). > >Suppose there's an opening 1S bid and an insufficient 1C overcall, >corrected to 2C. This pair plays light overcalls, but advancer >"shrewdly guesses" that overcaller has opening values, and they reach a >good contract they probably would not have reached without the IB. Now >all of us will adjust the score under L27B1b. (I suppose some will >use 72B1, but we couldn't have done that before 1997.) ok steve, don't rub salt in the wound :) > >What will we adjust to? Isn't it the probable/at all likely results >after the 1S opening bid and before the 1C IB? The point, of course, >is that advancer has done nothing wrong by "using" the information >conveyed by the IB. *In contrast to the normal UI situation*, it is >the *giving* of the information, not the using, that is the >infraction. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Apr 24 16:54:06 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3O6r7w16138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:53:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3O6r1H16134 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:53:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.78.184] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 170GNm-000M2h-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:36:03 +0100 Message-ID: <002901c1eb5b$3ac7abc0$b84ee150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 07:41:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > The original problem appeared when I discovered that TDs > in France and TDs in England rule differently. > +=+ If this is the problem perhaps we had better know what the law book in French says. How does it translate the words "but see (b) following" ? Do we have a difference in the meaning of the law or a difference in the judgement of what is "such information as to damage the non-offending side"? Has any French Director contributed to this brief thread? Il faut aller droit au 'but'. ~ 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 Apr 24 17:14:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3O7EMg16159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:14:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3O7EGH16155 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:14:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-45430.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.49.118]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.17) with ESMTP id g3O71pV10495 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:01:51 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CC658A2.5070802@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:02:58 +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 - direct question References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002901c1eb5b$3ac7abc0$b84ee150@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ If this is the problem perhaps we had better know > what the law book in French says. How does it translate > the words "but see (b) following" ? (mais voir b suivant) > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 17:16:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3O7GEg16171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:16:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3O7G8H16167 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:16:08 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3O74ZH29729 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:04:37 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Apr 24 09:00:45 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGXPTYWRDS001Z8B@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:03:57 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:03:35 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:03:56 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:16 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question > > > > The original problem appeared when I discovered that TDs > > in France and TDs in England rule differently. And they probably did before '97 as well as is the case for the Dutch and - I wouldn't be surprised - for the ACBL TD's also (?). Sven is still trying to tell us that we had an unanimous opinion before '97 but he only can do so because he ignores all what is said to the contrary. Nice way to push on. And it has nothing do with translation problems, but with trying to understand what the laws do say and making a consistent interpretation. They might make some voting mistakes in France nowadays, as we will see in the Netherlands in three weeks time, but in bridge they know what they are doing. 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 Apr 24 17:51:14 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3O7oe216190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:50:40 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3O7oZH16186 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:50:35 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3956.bb.online.no [80.212.223.116]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA12480 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:39:00 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <001901c1eb63$1981a120$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <002b01c1eb04$0373c5c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 09:39:00 +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: "David Stevenson" > >> Who managed very well? In my mails I read about completely different > >> interpretations around the world. Didn't you? > > >Not until 2001 > > We know that French and English TDs rule differently in 2002. Do you > *know* they ruled the same before 2001? No. Do we know that they didn't? Can this different interpretation really have been going on for years without anybody "discovering" it before now? Do we know which areas practice which understanding? I am rather surprised because I do know that top Norwegian directors (never me) have regularly attended international meetings, and I always had the impression they (like we do in Norway) coordinated their views of the laws to make certain they had a common understanding internationally on how to interpret and use 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 Wed Apr 24 21:29:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OBRP916283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:27:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3OBRIH16279 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 21:27:19 +1000 (EST) Received: from mycomputer ([62.0.95.62]) by mxout1.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GV20097NKLXD8@mxout1.netvision.net.il> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:15:37 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:17:12 +0200 From: Israel Erdnbaum Subject: [BLML] Insufficient bid To: Eric Landau , Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: talith , ayala hiler , Israel Erdenbaum Message-id: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> 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 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pairs Match points 1'st round | Board 33 N-P E--1H S-P W -1H Oh I've an opening bid N-- TD ! THe TD reads the options bidding continues 2H -- NP---E 4H -420 E's hand Kxx-Qxxxxx-Axx-Kx Board 34 E- P ;--S- 1S ; W-P-; N 2S ; E- P ; and now N Oh I have an opening bid W TD!! The TD explains to S that N's remark is unauthorised information etc. S ; but it's exactly the same as before TD; reads the parenthetical ,and so it was authorised information. S; but why ? TD ; because W was penalised ,and if he wanted to enable E to continue, he *had to bid 2H. S; so to bid 2H* showing partner an opening hand *is a penalty* ? TD ; yes. S; so why don't you 'penalise' N and don't let him change his call -and make this AI for me also* TD There is nothing in the Laws that allows me to do it. N ; I've enough of these Laws, come darling let's go play gin rummy. BTW At the end of the session the results on Board 33 -420 was over 60% for N/S most made -450. On Board 34 +140 would have been *top score* for N/S as all the others were 1 down mostly doubled -As W on lead had AKQ of S and A of D. Israel Erdenbaum -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 22:05:35 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OC5DI16305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:05:13 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3OC57H16301 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:05:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3956.bb.online.no [80.212.223.116]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA24702; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:53:31 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <008101c1eb86$a7909520$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002901c1eb5b$3ac7abc0$b84ee150@dodona> <3CC658A2.5070802@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - who does how? Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:53:30 +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" > > +=+ If this is the problem perhaps we had better know > > what the law book in French says. How does it translate > > the words "but see (b) following" ? > > > (mais voir b suivant) Seems equivalent with the original text to me? Is it possible to have a neutral investigation on how many (which) areas understand Law27B1 what I will call the "Norwegian" way and how many (which) the "French" way? If there is a great majority one way or the other it could give an indication on how the bridge world thinks (although not necessarily what WBFLC intended). (I have a feeling that because NBO's are likely to have instructed their directors to a common policy, a poll should go on the number of administrations rather than the number of bridge players). Am I right that France, Netherland and Belgium practise the "French" way? Others? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 22:15:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OCExn16374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:14:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3OCEsH16370 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:14:54 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 170LUa-0007N8-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:03:24 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020424075752.00b36d30@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:03:50 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example In-Reply-To: <005901c1eb18$5bd4cde0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020423174307.00b2faa0@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:43 PM 4/23/02, Sven wrote: >Are you trying to tell me that in Standard American if your RHO has >opened the auction with say 1S there is no way you can make calls >that tell your partner you have >a: A weak opening hand >b: A fair opening hand >c: A strong opening hand >d: etc. etc. >and expect to reach a sound contract except by first making an >insufficient bid showing that you have a hand worth opening in say 1H >and later in the auction follow up with other calls as applicable? > >I don't believe that! I am trying to tell Sven that in Standard American, the ranges for opening bids and overcalls are different. Translating into HCP, a typical partnership would agree something like opening bids 11-21, overcalls 7-17. Therefore a hand that would both open and make a simple overcall would be worth 11-17, which is a lot more closely defined than either the opening or the overcall. Of course, players have agreements that serve to refine the range of either by subsequent bidding, but I don't really think there are too many systems where one can distinguish between Sven's a, b, c and d with a single bid. Is that really unbelievable? 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 Apr 24 22:46:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OCjPO16432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:45:25 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3OCjGH16428 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 22:45:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-3956.bb.online.no [80.212.223.116]) by mail44.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA17523 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:33:41 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000701c1eb8c$44573800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020423174307.00b2faa0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.0.20020424075752.00b36d30@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 14:33:41 +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: "Eric Landau" > At 06:43 PM 4/23/02, Sven wrote: > > >Are you trying to tell me that in Standard American if your RHO has > >opened the auction with say 1S there is no way you can make calls > >that tell your partner you have > >a: A weak opening hand > >b: A fair opening hand > >c: A strong opening hand > >d: etc. etc. > >and expect to reach a sound contract except by first making an > >insufficient bid showing that you have a hand worth opening in say 1H > >and later in the auction follow up with other calls as applicable? > > > >I don't believe that! > > I am trying to tell Sven that in Standard American, the ranges for > opening bids and overcalls are different. Translating into HCP, a > typical partnership would agree something like opening bids 11-21, > overcalls 7-17. Therefore a hand that would both open and make a > simple overcall would be worth 11-17, which is a lot more closely > defined than either the opening or the overcall. Of course, players > have agreements that serve to refine the range of either by subsequent > bidding, but I don't really think there are too many systems where one > can distinguish between Sven's a, b, c and d with a single bid. > > Is that really unbelievable? Certainly not, and I cannot see how this can be relevant to a discussion on the understanding of Law27B1 The argument (if I remember correct) was something like "Law27B1(b) may come into the case when offending side has no way of reaching a favourable contract other than by first making an insufficient bid (for instance showing opening strength) and then correcting to the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination". I have asked for a demonstration of a serious bidding system with such deficiency. I cannot belive any exists. Without the insufficient bid the "no longer offender" who is not restricted in his choice between (legal) calls must indeed have means of showing his hand correctly to partner within any decent system - including Standard American? Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Apr 24 23:05:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OD5ap16561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:05:37 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3OD5VH16557 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:05:32 +1000 (EST) Received: from 192.168.1.2 (roc-24-93-16-32.rochester.rr.com [24.93.16.32]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g3OCrwH24430; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:53:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 08:51:19 -0400 From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: simpler Laws - fear of the ridiculus mus. To: Grattan Endicott , Bridge Laws X-Priority: 3 In-Reply-To: <001d01c1eb07$73cb8260$cd3ae150@dodona> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mailsmith 1.5.1 (Blindsider) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 4/23/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: > My hope is that by starting afresh where Edgar >left us with inferences and conflicts in the Laws, we may find >language with a sharper cutting edge. Failure in the exercise will >be marked by the need to explain what is not self-explanatory, >whether to the world at large or, sadly, to each other. This is true. One thing that occurs to me, however, is that the Kaplan approach of leaving ambiguity in the laws has at least one advantage: if you try to eliminate all ambiguity, but the law in question is a bad one, you're stuck until you repeal it. If you leave some ambiguity, you allow of interpretation without a rewrite of the law itself. How much that may matter, I don't know. 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 key id: 0xAEF77BCE 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 Apr 25 00:18:43 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OEI3a16594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:18:03 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3OEHwH16590 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:17:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 170NPg-0002Zt-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:06:28 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020424095925.00b33700@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:06:55 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example In-Reply-To: <000701c1eb8c$44573800$6700a8c0@nwtyb> References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020423174307.00b2faa0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.0.20020424075752.00b36d30@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:33 AM 4/24/02, Sven wrote: >From: "Eric Landau" > > > I am trying to tell Sven that in Standard American, the ranges for > > opening bids and overcalls are different. Translating into HCP, a > > typical partnership would agree something like opening bids 11-21, > > overcalls 7-17. Therefore a hand that would both open and make a > > simple overcall would be worth 11-17, which is a lot more closely > > defined than either the opening or the overcall. Of course, players > > have agreements that serve to refine the range of either by subsequent > > bidding, but I don't really think there are too many systems where one > > can distinguish between Sven's a, b, c and d with a single bid. > > > > Is that really unbelievable? > >Certainly not, and I cannot see how this can be relevant to a discussion >on the understanding of Law27B1 > >The argument (if I remember correct) was something like "Law27B1(b) >may come into the case when offending side has no way of reaching >a favourable contract other than by first making an insufficient bid (for >instance showing opening strength) and then correcting to the lowest >sufficient bid in the same denomination". I have asked for a demonstration >of a serious bidding system with such deficiency. I cannot belive any >exists. > >Without the insufficient bid the "no longer offender" who is not >restricted >in his choice between (legal) calls must indeed have means of showing >his hand correctly to partner within any decent system - including >Standard American? WTP? W opens 1S, N bids 2H, showing 7-17, E passes. S holds a 9-count, but doesn't want to raise, because the chance of reaching a making game is considerably less than the chance of getting too high when pard has a minimum, so he decides to pass. But if he knew that partner actually had at least a decent 11-count, he might have decided that he could take his chances at the 3-level and raise invitationally, mightn't he? 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 Apr 25 00:36:30 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OEaGH16608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:36:16 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3OEaAH16604 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:36:11 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1096.bb.online.no [80.212.212.72]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA09695; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:24:35 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000b01c1eb9b$c288fba0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <200204231423.KAA28000@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.0.20020423174307.00b2faa0@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.0.20020424075752.00b36d30@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.0.20020424095925.00b33700@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:24:35 +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: "Eric Landau" > >The argument (if I remember correct) was something like "Law27B1(b) > >may come into the case when offending side has no way of reaching > >a favourable contract other than by first making an insufficient bid (for > >instance showing opening strength) and then correcting to the lowest > >sufficient bid in the same denomination". I have asked for a demonstration > >of a serious bidding system with such deficiency. I cannot belive any > >exists. > > > >Without the insufficient bid the "no longer offender" who is not > >restricted > >in his choice between (legal) calls must indeed have means of showing > >his hand correctly to partner within any decent system - including > >Standard American? > > WTP? W opens 1S, N bids 2H, showing 7-17, E passes. S holds a > 9-count, but doesn't want to raise, because the chance of reaching a > making game is considerably less than the chance of getting too high > when pard has a minimum, so he decides to pass. But if he knew that > partner actually had at least a decent 11-count, he might have decided > that he could take his chances at the 3-level and raise invitationally, > mightn't he? OH Dear! I didn't read the explanation of Standard American carefully enough. That is really such a deficient system: Second hand after an opener has no way of distinguishing between a 7HCP hand and a 17HCP hand???? What a pity. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 25 01:05:49 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OF5Un16633 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:05:30 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3OF5PH16629 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:05:25 +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 KAA12233 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA04582 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:53:54 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:53:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204241453.KAA04582@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Sven Pran" > Exactly, but Law27B1(b) makes no sense if the only reason for it would > be a system that (almost) nobody uses. ... > The argument (if I remember correct) was something like "Law27B1(b) > may come into the case when offending side has no way of reaching > a favourable contract other than by first making an insufficient bid (for All bidding systems have flaws. Keep in mind also that the standard is not "no way of reaching" but rather whether, absent the IB, it would be likely/at all probable to fail to reach the favorable contract. Here's another example. EW reach the four level without finding a fit, and then East bids 3NT. He corrects to 4NT, and partner is barred (L27B2), but 4NT is a good contract. Without the IB, 4NT would have been Blackwood. Nowadays, we can use L72B1, but prior to 1997 we would have had to use 27B1b. (West would not have been barred but would presumably have passed.) > Simply because I/we/they have not noticed any different interpretations One of the surprises of BLML has been the variety of different interpretations that are considered standard in different regions. To address Adam's question: if people from all over the world are going to play bridge with and against each other -- and that is becoming more and more popular via internet bridge -- they have to have a common framework of rules. So it is important to make the rules the same to the extent possible. I expect convention and alert rules may well become more similar over time, but even without that happening, it should be possible to standardize procedures and penalties for mechanical irregularities. Who knows... some day one may even to hear "pass" instead of "no bid" in England. :-) > Unless the IB is corrected under Law27B1(a) the information from it > is UI to offender's partner! I stand corrected; this is true now. It wasn't true prior to 1997. So there was a definite change in 1997. Given the current Laws, it should not be necessary to apply 27B1b after a ruling under 27B2. Very interesting! Prior to 1997, it might have been necessary. > The reference is in the body of Law27B1(a) and the referenced law is the > body of Law27B1(b). The headers play no part here and you do not "enter" > L27B1(b) unless directed to it from L27B1(a). That is the way the Laws > are structured. However, as a general proposition, this is incorrect. References are for the TD's convenience, but you apply a law when it applies. You don't need a reference from some other 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 Thu Apr 25 01:31:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OFVAO16651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:31:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3OFV3H16647 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:31:04 +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 g3OFJjx21791 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:19:46 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:17:26 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> In-Reply-To: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer>, Israel Erdnbaum writes >Pairs Match points 1'st round | > Board 33 N-P E--1H S-P W -1H Oh I've an opening bid N-- TD ! THe >TD reads the options >bidding continues 2H -- NP---E 4H -420 >E's hand Kxx-Qxxxxx-Axx-Kx > > Board 34 E- P ;--S- 1S ; W-P-; N 2S ; > E- P ; and now N Oh I have an opening bid W >TD!! > Nice one Israel. The following call makes all the difference :) >The TD explains to S that N's remark is unauthorised information etc. > S ; but it's exactly the same as before > TD; reads the parenthetical ,and so it was authorised information. > S; but why ? >TD ; because W was penalised ,and if he wanted to enable E to continue, he >*had to bid 2H. > S; so to bid 2H* showing partner an opening hand *is a penalty* ? >TD ; yes. > S; so why don't you 'penalise' N and don't let him change his call -and >make this AI for me also* >TD There is nothing in the Laws that allows me to do it. > N ; I've enough of these Laws, come darling let's go play gin rummy. > I'll settle for 5 pounds a 100 rubber. cheers john >BTW At the end of the session the results on Board 33 -420 was over 60% >for N/S most made -450. On Board 34 +140 would have been *top score* for >N/S as all the others were 1 down mostly doubled -As W on lead had AKQ of S >and A of D. >Israel Erdenbaum > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 25 01:41:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OFfWQ16671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:41:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3OFfQH16667 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 01:41:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1096.bb.online.no [80.212.212.72]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA10780 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:29:44 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <002b01c1eba4$dc9c9de0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204241453.KAA04582@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 17:29:44 +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: "Steve Willner" > Here's another example. EW reach the four level without finding a fit, > and then East bids 3NT. He corrects to 4NT, and partner is barred > (L27B2), but 4NT is a good contract. Without the IB, 4NT would have > been Blackwood. Nowadays, we can use L72B1, but prior to 1997 we > would have had to use 27B1b. (West would not have been barred but would > presumably have passed.) You ought to know better than that: Because 4NT would have been Blackwood the applicable law today is Law 27B2, not Law27B1. And we would use Law23 (enforced pass damaging opponents)! It is true that before 1997 we would rule by Law 27B1(b): Before 1987 there was no requirement that the insufficient bid nor that the replacement bid had to be non-conventional, and between 1987 and 1997 there was no requirement that the replacement bid had to be non-conventional for a correction under Law 27B1(a) to be permitted. But Law27B1(b) has been there all the time since 1975. Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 25 02:33:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OGSQh16695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 02:28:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3OGSHH16691 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 02:28:18 +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 MAA17198 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:16:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA04848 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:16:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:16:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204241616.MAA04848@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Steve Willner" > > Here's another example. EW reach the four level without finding a fit, > > and then East bids 3NT. He corrects to 4NT, and partner is barred > > (L27B2), but 4NT is a good contract. Without the IB, 4NT would have > > been Blackwood. Nowadays, we can use L72B1, but prior to 1997 we > > would have had to use 27B1b. (West would not have been barred but would > > presumably have passed.) > From: "Sven Pran" > You ought to know better than that: Because 4NT would have been > Blackwood the applicable law today is Law 27B2, not Law27B1. If you read carefully, you will see that I do indeed know that. > And we would use Law23 (enforced pass damaging opponents)! Yes, L23 and 72B1 come to the same thing. > It is true that before 1997 we would rule by Law 27B1(b): Which was exactly what I wrote. It is fair to say that at the current stage of the Laws, L27B1b will apply much less often than it used to, regardless of which interpretation if its meaning you adopt. However, it will still sometimes apply in either interpretation. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 25 02:50:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OGoHR16715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 02:50:17 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3OGoCH16711 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 02:50:12 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1096.bb.online.no [80.212.212.72]) by mail48.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA06139 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:38:36 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <003901c1ebae$7b351dc0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: References: <200204241616.MAA04848@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 18:38:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry, yes I see that now. So your example was relevant for Law27B1 only before 1997? Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 6:16 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - new example > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > Here's another example. EW reach the four level without finding a fit, > > > and then East bids 3NT. He corrects to 4NT, and partner is barred > > > (L27B2), but 4NT is a good contract. Without the IB, 4NT would have > > > been Blackwood. Nowadays, we can use L72B1, but prior to 1997 we > > > would have had to use 27B1b. (West would not have been barred but would > > > presumably have passed.) > > > From: "Sven Pran" > > You ought to know better than that: Because 4NT would have been > > Blackwood the applicable law today is Law 27B2, not Law27B1. > > If you read carefully, you will see that I do indeed know that. > > > And we would use Law23 (enforced pass damaging opponents)! > > Yes, L23 and 72B1 come to the same thing. > > > It is true that before 1997 we would rule by Law 27B1(b): > > Which was exactly what I wrote. > > It is fair to say that at the current stage of the Laws, L27B1b will > apply much less often than it used to, regardless of which > interpretation if its meaning you adopt. However, it will still > sometimes apply in either interpretation. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 25 04:12:48 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OICQF16855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:12:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu ([128.206.7.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3OICLH16851 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:12:21 +1000 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] ([128.206.98.1]) by col-msxproto2.col.missouri.edu with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.3779); Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:00:50 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:19:43 -0500 To: David Stevenson , BLML From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Apr 2002 18:00:50.0705 (UTC) FILETIME=[F81A8810:01C1EBB9] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DW Stevesno writes >Sven Pran writes > >>What is the interpretation needed now that we have managed very >>well without for 27 years with an essentially unchanged law? > > The original problem appeared when I discovered that TDs in France and >TDs in England rule differently. > > I do not think different interpretations in different European >countries qualifies as "managing very well". It would help me make sense of this very long thread if I knew a. How Directors in England and France rule b. What the comlete text of the 1992 commentary says in relation to Law 27. (Is the 1992 commentary available somewhere?) Also, in general, it would be helpful to me if writers identify where they are writing from (or about); often the discussion makes more sense to me when the geography is clearer. 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 Thu Apr 25 04:44:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OIi1T16873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:44:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3OIhuH16869 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 04:43:56 +1000 (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 g3OIWOF07732 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:32:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <007001c1ebbe$54a38240$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 11:31:23 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 had thought that what I call "mixed" score adjustments were a thing of the past, but here we go again! Life Masters Pairs, Toronto NABC, July 21, 2001, first semi-final session Dealer: South Vulnerability: Both S- J10972 H- 8 D- K109843 C- 5 S- AKQ S- 43 H- 107 H- KQJ54 D- Q6 D- J72 C- AKJ1064 C- 932 S- 865 H- A9632 D- A5 C- Q87 West North East South Pass 2C 2NT(1) Pass(2) 3C(3) Pass 3D Dbl 4H 5C All pass (1) Alerted; explained as clubs or red suits (2) Alerted; values (3) Pass-or-correct The Director was called at the end of play. He determined that there had been a mistaken explanation: N/S's agreement was that 2NT showed two non-touching suits. The Director ruled that the 5C bid broke the connection between the MI and damage (Law 40C, 21B) and allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to attend the hearing. On the information given at the table, West had reason to believe that his partner would be short in hearts and therefore his high-card strength would be useful. West also believed that his defensive values were sub-par for a 2C opener against a red two-suiter on his left. The Committee Decision: The Committee decided that the 5C bid was directly connected to the misexplanation which, combined with the subsequent auction, created a clearly erroneous picture for West. The Committee discussed probable results if West had been told over 4H that North had either the pointed suits or the rounded suits and decided that there were too many possibilities. After considering awarding E/W Average Plus, the Committee decided that +500 defending 4S doubled was the best result that was likely. Therefore, E/W's award was limited to the lesser of +500 or Average Plus; N/S were correspondingly assigned the better of -500 or Average Minus. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Henry Bethe (chair), Lowell Andrews, Bill Passell ######## There has been much discussion about eliminating ACs, but if they were better constituted and properly trained maybe they would do better. The ACBLScore program isn't even programmed to do this sort of adjustment, although it does have the ability to assign avg+ or result, whichever is better, and avg- or result, whichever is worse (L25B2b2?). An adjustment like this one was also used in St Louis Appeal 30 (Fall 1997), so it's nothing new. The ACs' motivation seems to be the avoidance of an abnormally good or bad matchpoint result due to a score adjustment, in disregard of what the Laws say. BLML casebook commentators: David Stevenson went along with +/-500, while Grattan thought the table result should stand for E/W but -500 for N/S, politely ignoring the artificial score nonsense (as David termed it). He cited the Lille WBFLC interpretation that affirmed the legality of one-sided score adjustments, which the TDs should know by now.. Ton only commented that the TD should have ruled for damage himself. Only three of the commentators went along with an artificial score adjustment, but that's three too many. Fire them! Of course the score must be adjusted, and indeed the proper adjustment per L12C2 is not easy to determine. I agree with Grattan (and Ralph Cohen) that E/W should keep their score, since their bidding is close enough to "irrational, wild, or gambling" to deny them redress. Perhaps BLML has more opinions? 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 Apr 25 05:06:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OJ6KZ16891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:06:20 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3OJ6EH16887 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 05:06:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-1460.bb.online.no [80.212.213.180]) by mail50.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA05164 for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:54:38 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <005801c1ebc1$7c38d780$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: "BLML" References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 20:54:38 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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" > a. How Directors in England and France rule Auction: 1H - P - 1H* insufficient, corrected to 2H 1: Is the information that responder (probably) intended his 1H bid to be an opening bid while the 2H bid was just a simple raise available to offender's partner? Law 16C2 does explicitly not apply, but how is law 27B1(b) to be understood? French style(?): Yes, it is available English style(?): No, it is not available. 2: If the Director judges that he should try the case under law 27B1(b) what constitutes the base for deciding whether there is damage or not? Given the example above: With no irregularity responder will obviously make some demand calls and they will land in game or slam depending upon the quality of the opening hand. With the irregularity the offender has the choice to gamble the final contract directly (no problem) or to correct his bid to 2H after which the auction continues. Do we now consider "damage" under Law27B1(b) because offender's partner has received information from the 1H insufficient bid that is not conveyed by the replacement bid? Is "damage" the difference between the result they obtained as compared to the same result they would have obtained given no irregularity at all (French style?), or do we compare to the result they would obtain given that responder must give a completely false view of his hand (simple raise instead of opening strength) in order to let his partner continue (English style?). Question unsettled. > > b. What the complete text of the 1992 commentary says in relation to Law 27. > (Is the 1992 commentary available somewhere?) I do not know if it is available online anywhere, and the comments to Law 27 are rather voluminous, but here is at least some of the text that is most relevant to Law27B1(b): 27.5 (i) ........ However, the Director is required to consider whether 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. 27.6 There are some other significant cases where the insufficient bid can lead to damage of the non-offending side: Example A: West: 1C - North Pass - East 1C Here it is apparent from this situation that both players have an opening bid and that at least game should be reached. ........ Example B: West: 2C (Precision) - North: 2C (Acol) Again it would seem there is too much information. However, the position is saved because the insufficient bid is conventional; .... Example C: West 1H - North 1D Much depends upon what North thought West had bid - if anything - and here for example if he had heard 1C and the club system was natural and the diamond overcall was also natural, little damage would on the face of it appear to be suffered by East-West if North corrects to 2D and in such cases the auction should certainly be permitted to proceed under the wary eye of the Director. ..... > > > Also, in general, it would be helpful to me if writers identify where they > are writing from (or about); often the discussion makes more sense to me > when the geography is clearer. Pretty often you can tell from the e-mail address ( .no is Norway) Sven -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 25 07:08:22 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3OL7iJ16962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 07:07:44 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3OL7dH16958 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 07:07:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from 208-59-106-58.c3-0.slvr-ubr1.lnh-slvr.md.cable.rcn.com ([208.59.106.58] helo=aplsi1.starpower.net) by smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #10) id 170To8-0003gG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:56:08 -0400 Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20020424164803.00b3db40@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: ehaa/pop.starpower.net@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 16:56:36 -0400 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 In-Reply-To: <007001c1ebbe$54a38240$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:31 PM 4/24/02, Marvin wrote: >I had thought that what I call "mixed" score adjustments were a >thing of the past, but here we go again! > >Life Masters Pairs, Toronto NABC, July 21, 2001, first semi-final >session > >Dealer: South >Vulnerability: Both > > S- J10972 > H- 8 > D- K109843 > C- 5 > >S- AKQ S- 43 >H- 107 H- KQJ54 >D- Q6 D- J72 >C- AKJ1064 C- 932 > > S- 865 > H- A9632 > D- A5 > C- Q87 > >West North East South > Pass > 2C 2NT(1) Pass(2) 3C(3) >Pass 3D Dbl 4H > 5C All pass > >(1) Alerted; explained as clubs or red suits >(2) Alerted; values >(3) Pass-or-correct > >The Director was called at the end of play. He determined that there >had been a mistaken explanation: N/S's agreement was that 2NT showed >two non-touching suits. The Director ruled that the 5C bid broke the >connection between the MI and damage (Law 40C, 21B) and allowed the >table result to stand. > >The Appeal: > >E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to >attend the hearing. On the information given at the table, West had >reason to believe that his partner would be short in >hearts and therefore his high-card strength would be useful. West >also believed that his defensive values were sub-par for a 2C opener >against a red two-suiter on his left. > >The Committee Decision: > >The Committee decided that the 5C bid was directly connected to the >misexplanation which, combined with the subsequent auction, created >a clearly erroneous picture for West. The Committee discussed >probable results if West had been told over 4H that North had either >the pointed suits or the rounded suits and decided that there were >too many possibilities. After considering awarding E/W Average Plus, >the Committee decided that +500 defending 4S doubled was the best >result that was likely. Therefore, E/W's award was limited to the >lesser of +500 or Average Plus; N/S were correspondingly assigned >the better of -500 or Average Minus. > >DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff >Committee: Henry Bethe (chair), Lowell Andrews, Bill Passell > >######## >There has been much discussion about eliminating ACs, but if they >were better constituted and properly trained maybe they would do >better. > >The ACBLScore program isn't even programmed to do this sort >of adjustment, although it does have the ability to assign avg+ or >result, whichever is better, and avg- or result, whichever is worse >(L25B2b2?). An adjustment like this one was also used in St Louis >Appeal 30 (Fall 1997), so it's nothing new. The ACs' motivation >seems to be the avoidance of an abnormally good or bad matchpoint >result due to a score adjustment, in disregard of what the Laws say. > >BLML casebook commentators: David Stevenson went along with +/-500, >while Grattan thought the table result should stand for E/W but -500 >for N/S, politely ignoring the artificial score nonsense (as David >termed it). He cited the Lille WBFLC interpretation that affirmed >the legality of one-sided score adjustments, which the TDs should >know by now.. Ton only commented that the TD should have ruled >for damage himself. Only three of the commentators went along with >an artificial score adjustment, but that's three too many. Fire >them! > >Of course the score must be adjusted, and indeed the proper >adjustment per L12C2 is not easy to determine. I agree with Grattan >(and Ralph Cohen) that E/W should keep their score, since their >bidding is close enough to "irrational, wild, or gambling" to deny >them redress. Perhaps BLML has more opinions? I'm with David S. on this one. The artificial limitation to A+/A- has no basis in law. The 5C bid, IMO, was a bad bid, but not a sufficiently egregious error to "break the connection". So, as I see it, the ruling should be either a non-split adjustment (presumably the -500/+500 the committee determined) or no adjustment. That would depend on whether the TD/AC determined that "the 5C bid was directly connected to the misexplanation" -- which they did. So I think they were about to get it right until they threw in the nonsense about A+/A-. 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 Apr 25 17:43:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3P7gM717219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:42:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3P7gGH17215 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:42:16 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3P7UcH26028 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:30:43 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Apr 25 09:26:47 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGZ51C8OPC002029@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:29:47 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:29:25 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:29:45 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question To: "'Robert E. Harris'" , David Stevenson , 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 > > DW Stevesno writes > > >Sven Pran writes > > > >>What is the interpretation needed now that we have managed very > >>well without for 27 years with an essentially unchanged law? > > > > The original problem appeared when I discovered that TDs > in France and > >TDs in England rule differently. > > > > I do not think different interpretations in different European > >countries qualifies as "managing very well". Well, we have different capitols and most of us our own language and I agree that from a management point of view this doesn't look efficient or convincing. We still are very proud about the introduction of the euro in some of our countries, though protesting sounds are starting to be heard. But regarding interpretations of the bridge laws I still prefer worldwide statements and as long as no 'manager' in Europe has the task to unify interpretatins on our continent, I won't use any disqualification in that respect. 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 Apr 25 18:05:44 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3P85T717236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:05:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3P85NH17232 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:05:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3P7rnH03416 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:53:49 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Apr 25 09:49:53 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGZ5UR8DXS0020VF@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:53:30 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:53:08 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:53:28 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Van: Marvin L. French [mailto:mlfrench@writeme.com] > I had thought that what I call "mixed" score adjustments were a > thing of the past, but here we go again! > > Life Masters Pairs, Toronto NABC, July 21, 2001, first semi-final > session > > Dealer: South > Vulnerability: Both > > S- J10972 > H- 8 > D- K109843 > C- 5 > > S- AKQ S- 43 > H- 107 H- KQJ54 > D- Q6 D- J72 > C- AKJ1064 C- 932 > > S- 865 > H- A9632 > D- A5 > C- Q87 > > West North East South > Pass > 2C 2NT(1) Pass(2) 3C(3) > Pass 3D Dbl 4H > 5C All pass > > (1) Alerted; explained as clubs or red suits > (2) Alerted; values > (3) Pass-or-correct > > The Director was called at the end of play. He determined that there > had been a mistaken explanation: N/S's agreement was that 2NT showed > two non-touching suits. The Director ruled that the 5C bid broke the > connection between the MI and damage (Law 40C, 21B) and allowed the > table result to stand. > > The Appeal: > > E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to > attend the hearing. On the information given at the table, West had > reason to believe that his partner would be short in > hearts and therefore his high-card strength would be useful. West > also believed that his defensive values were sub-par for a 2C opener > against a red two-suiter on his left. > > The Committee Decision: > > The Committee decided that the 5C bid was directly connected to the > misexplanation which, combined with the subsequent auction, created > a clearly erroneous picture for West. The Committee discussed > probable results if West had been told over 4H that North had either > the pointed suits or the rounded suits and decided that there were > too many possibilities. After considering awarding E/W Average Plus, > the Committee decided that +500 defending 4S doubled was the best > result that was likely. Therefore, E/W's award was limited to the > lesser of +500 or Average Plus; N/S were correspondingly assigned > the better of -500 or Average Minus. > > DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff > Committee: Henry Bethe (chair), Lowell Andrews, Bill Passell > > ######## > There has been much discussion about eliminating ACs, but if they > were better constituted and properly trained maybe they would do > better. > > The ACBLScore program isn't even programmed to do this sort > of adjustment, although it does have the ability to assign avg+ or > result, whichever is better, and avg- or result, whichever is worse > (L25B2b2?). An adjustment like this one was also used in St Louis > Appeal 30 (Fall 1997), so it's nothing new. The ACs' motivation > seems to be the avoidance of an abnormally good or bad matchpoint > result due to a score adjustment, in disregard of what the Laws say. Could you show me which law does say that we should not avoid abnormally good or bad results? Interpretation again, isn't it? And I do read L12C as saying that we really should avoid such results, though more for the innocent than for the guilty side. > > BLML casebook commentators: David Stevenson went along with +/-500, > while Grattan thought the table result should stand for E/W but -500 > for N/S, politely ignoring the artificial score nonsense (as David > termed it). He cited the Lille WBFLC interpretation that affirmed > the legality of one-sided score adjustments, which the TDs should > know by now.. Ton only commented that the TD should have ruled > for damage himself. Which you may translate in agreeing with the decision from the AC. So put me in the group of the 3, allowing an artificial score here if needed (when +500 would be less than 60%). Based on a liberal interpretation of Law 12A2, considering this case as one which can't be restored to make the board playable. This we do in the Netherlands and in the ACBL and in the EBL and probably in France. So fire me. ton Only three of the commentators went along with > an artificial score adjustment, but that's three too many. Fire > them! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 25 19:46:16 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3P9jjE17287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:45:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3P9jdH17283 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:45:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.1.ap (guppy)) id LAA18096; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:32:49 +0200 (MET DST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA12191; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:34:04 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020425112953.00a83400@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:39:54 +0200 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 In-Reply-To: <007001c1ebbe$54a38240$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:31 24/04/2002 -0700, Marvin L. French wrote: >I had thought that what I call "mixed" score adjustments were a >thing of the past, but here we go again! > >Life Masters Pairs, Toronto NABC, July 21, 2001, first semi-final >session > >Dealer: South >Vulnerability: Both > > S- J10972 > H- 8 > D- K109843 > C- 5 > >S- AKQ S- 43 >H- 107 H- KQJ54 >D- Q6 D- J72 >C- AKJ1064 C- 932 > > S- 865 > H- A9632 > D- A5 > C- Q87 > >West North East South > Pass > 2C 2NT(1) Pass(2) 3C(3) >Pass 3D Dbl 4H > 5C All pass > >(1) Alerted; explained as clubs or red suits >(2) Alerted; values >(3) Pass-or-correct > >The Director was called at the end of play. He determined that there >had been a mistaken explanation: N/S's agreement was that 2NT showed >two non-touching suits. The Director ruled that the 5C bid broke the >connection between the MI and damage (Law 40C, 21B) and allowed the >table result to stand. > >The Appeal: > >E/W appealed the Director's ruling and were the only players to >attend the hearing. On the information given at the table, West had >reason to believe that his partner would be short in >hearts and therefore his high-card strength would be useful. West >also believed that his defensive values were sub-par for a 2C opener >against a red two-suiter on his left. > >The Committee Decision: > >The Committee decided that the 5C bid was directly connected to the >misexplanation which, combined with the subsequent auction, created >a clearly erroneous picture for West. The Committee discussed >probable results if West had been told over 4H that North had either >the pointed suits or the rounded suits and decided that there were >too many possibilities. After considering awarding E/W Average Plus, >the Committee decided that +500 defending 4S doubled was the best >result that was likely. Therefore, E/W's award was limited to the >lesser of +500 or Average Plus; N/S were correspondingly assigned >the better of -500 or Average Minus. > >DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff >Committee: Henry Bethe (chair), Lowell Andrews, Bill Passell > >Of course the score must be adjusted, and indeed the proper >adjustment per L12C2 is not easy to determine. I agree with Grattan >(and Ralph Cohen) that E/W should keep their score, since their >bidding is close enough to "irrational, wild, or gambling" to deny >them redress. Perhaps BLML has more opinions? AG : I hope we will all agree that this "worse of" is absurd. Apart from the fact that artificial scores shouldn't be applied here, how can you live with the idea of assigning ths NOS the *worst* of two possible scores ? West's 2C opening is on the light side, unless perhaps it is a French semi-strong 2C (2D being strongest), but once West has bid it, his 5C is a plausible bid (perhaps not best, but plausible). If partner holds a red Ace and some length in the blacks, one can imagine that 5C makes and 4H doesn't go off much. And, Lord knows, if partner has length and strength in diamonds, and some clubs, 4H might well make. I think 5C doesn't meet the (quite strong) conditions that make an IWG bid. Adjust to 4SX -2 if you think NS will land on their feet in 4S, but I'd prefer to adjust to 5SX-3, because if North bids 4S over 4H South will have quite a hard time. Best regards, Alain. >Marv >Marvin L. French >San Diego, California > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 25 19:51:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3P9p1Q17299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:51:01 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3P9otH17295 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 19:50:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id LAA09118; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:36:46 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id LAA19783; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:39:21 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020425114157.00a84b30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:45:11 +0200 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 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 09:53 25/04/2002 +0200, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > > The Committee decided that the 5C bid was directly connected to the > > misexplanation which, combined with the subsequent auction, created > > a clearly erroneous picture for West. The Committee discussed > > probable results if West had been told over 4H that North had either > > the pointed suits or the rounded suits and decided that there were > > too many possibilities. After considering awarding E/W Average Plus, > > the Committee decided that +500 defending 4S doubled was the best > > result that was likely. Therefore, E/W's award was limited to the > > lesser of +500 or Average Plus; N/S were correspondingly assigned > > the better of -500 or Average Minus. > > > > > The ACBLScore program isn't even programmed to do this sort > > of adjustment, although it does have the ability to assign avg+ or > > result, whichever is better, and avg- or result, whichever is worse > > (L25B2b2?). An adjustment like this one was also used in St Louis > > Appeal 30 (Fall 1997), so it's nothing new. The ACs' motivation > > seems to be the avoidance of an abnormally good or bad matchpoint > > result due to a score adjustment, in disregard of what the Laws say. > > >Could you show me which law does say that we should not avoid abnormally >good or bad results? >Interpretation again, isn't it? And I do read L12C as saying that we really >should avoid such results, though more for the innocent than for the guilty >side. > > > > > > BLML casebook commentators: David Stevenson went along with +/-500, > > while Grattan thought the table result should stand for E/W but -500 > > for N/S, politely ignoring the artificial score nonsense (as David > > termed it). He cited the Lille WBFLC interpretation that affirmed > > the legality of one-sided score adjustments, which the TDs should > > know by now.. Ton only commented that the TD should have ruled > > for damage himself. > >Which you may translate in agreeing with the decision from the AC. So put me >in the group of the 3, allowing an artificial score here if needed (when >+500 would be less than 60%). Based on a liberal interpretation of Law 12A2, >considering this case as one which can't be restored to make the board >playable. This we do in the Netherlands and in the ACBL and in the EBL and >probably in France. So fire me. AG : but your opinion translates in "give EW the *best* of +500 or A+", not "the worst" This is a ruling which has been done before, with which I don't agree, but which at least is rational. So, I'll fire you if you don't understand the difference, and the AC in any case. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Apr 25 20:10:20 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3PAA7x17318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:10:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from dns1.minlnv.nl (dns1.minlnv.nl [145.12.34.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3PAA2H17314 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 20:10:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from agro006s.nic.agro.nl (agro006s.agro.nl [145.12.5.38]) by dns1.minlnv.nl (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id g3P9wNH08935 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:58:23 +0200 (MEST) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro006s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Apr 25 11:53:56 2002 +0200 Received: from agro500s.nic.agro.nl ([145.12.5.44]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #39086) with ESMTP id <01KGZA6YK0O00020MN@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:57:06 +0200 Received: by AGRO500S with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:56:44 +0200 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:57:03 +0200 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 To: "'Alain Gottcheiner'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > The Committee decided that the 5C bid was directly > connected to the > > > misexplanation which, combined with the subsequent > auction, created > > > a clearly erroneous picture for West. The Committee discussed > > > probable results if West had been told over 4H that North > had either > > > the pointed suits or the rounded suits and decided that there were > > > too many possibilities. After considering awarding E/W > Average Plus, > > > the Committee decided that +500 defending 4S doubled was the best > > > result that was likely. Therefore, E/W's award was limited to the > > > lesser of +500 or Average Plus; N/S were correspondingly assigned > > > the better of -500 or Average Minus. > > > > > > > > The ACBLScore program isn't even programmed to do this sort > > > of adjustment, although it does have the ability to assign avg+ or > > > result, whichever is better, and avg- or result, > whichever is worse > > > (L25B2b2?). An adjustment like this one was also used in St Louis > > > Appeal 30 (Fall 1997), so it's nothing new. The ACs' motivation > > > seems to be the avoidance of an abnormally good or bad matchpoint > > > result due to a score adjustment, in disregard of what > the Laws say. > > > > > >Could you show me which law does say that we should not > avoid abnormally > >good or bad results? > >Interpretation again, isn't it? And I do read L12C as saying > that we really > >should avoid such results, though more for the innocent than > for the guilty > >side. > > > > > > > > > > BLML casebook commentators: David Stevenson went along > with +/-500, > > > while Grattan thought the table result should stand for > E/W but -500 > > > for N/S, politely ignoring the artificial score nonsense (as David > > > termed it). He cited the Lille WBFLC interpretation that affirmed > > > the legality of one-sided score adjustments, which the TDs should > > > know by now.. Ton only commented that the TD should have ruled > > > for damage himself. > > > >Which you may translate in agreeing with the decision from > the AC. So put me > >in the group of the 3, allowing an artificial score here if > needed (when > >+500 would be less than 60%). Based on a liberal > interpretation of Law 12A2, > >considering this case as one which can't be restored to make > the board > >playable. This we do in the Netherlands and in the ACBL and > in the EBL and > >probably in France. So fire me. > > AG : but your opinion translates in "give EW the *best* of > +500 or A+", not > "the worst" > This is a ruling which has been done before, with which I > don't agree, but > which at least is rational. > So, I'll fire you if you don't understand the difference, and > the AC in any > case. I do understand the difference (relief!!) but didn't read that well. Mea Culpa. 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 Apr 27 04:48:32 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3QIl0X18317 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:47:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailrelay1 (relay2.onetel.co.uk [212.36.181.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g3QIkcH18300 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:46:39 +1000 (EST) Received: from 212.36.181.100 by mailrelay1 (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:31:52 +0100 Received: from onetel.co.uk (async114-14.nas.onetel.net.uk [212.67.110.114]) by cpq-trend01.onetel.co.uk (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g3QIUsR4028054 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:31:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:39:59 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <002b01c1eb04$0373c5c0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> 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 >So. .... the auction goes 1H - 2H and feeling mildly frivolous I bid 4h >which makes on a 3-2, and a 2-2 break and 3 finesses. > >So the auction goes 1H - 2H ("O s**t! I have an opener!"). Well I guess >I'd better pass with my manquee 11-count. > >So the auction goes 1H - (loadsa aggro with the pigs, where the AI I >have is that pard has heart support, and I've no idea what the UI is) >2H. Are my LA's restricted? > >Israel thinks they are 100%. I'm not so sure, but I think I'd adjust in >practice as I believe that there's NO way opener would know it's right >to bid 4H unless he's got some sort of wire. > >OK. Final question: > >Stevenson is opener; I'm responder; and I sit there absolutely like >stone while all the s**t is going on and then bid 2H. Are David's LA's >restricted? How can my LAs be restricted when L16 does not apply? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 27 04:48:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3QIkwK18316 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:46:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailrelay1 (relay2.onetel.co.uk [212.36.181.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g3QIkgH18308 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:46:43 +1000 (EST) Received: from 212.36.181.100 by mailrelay1 (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:31:52 +0100 Received: from onetel.co.uk (async114-14.nas.onetel.net.uk [212.67.110.114]) by cpq-trend01.onetel.co.uk (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g3QIUsR4028051 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:31:17 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:35:29 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid References: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> In-Reply-To: <007f01c1eb89$f8dc0420$3e5f003e@mycomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Israel Erdnbaum writes >Pairs Match points 1'st round | > Board 33 N-P E--1H S-P W -1H Oh I've an opening bid N-- TD ! > THe >TD reads the options >bidding continues 2H -- NP---E 4H -420 >E's hand Kxx-Qxxxxx-Axx-Kx We adjust under L16A. Certainly L16 does not apply to Insufficient Bids but if West made a comment as well then that comment is UI. > Board 34 E- P ;--S- 1S ; W-P-; N 2S ; > E- P ; and now N Oh I have an opening bid W >TD!! Effectively the same position. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 27 04:48:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3QIkuo18315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:46:56 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailrelay1 (relay2.onetel.co.uk [212.36.181.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g3QIkcH18299 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:46:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from 212.36.181.100 by mailrelay1 (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:31:51 +0100 Received: from onetel.co.uk (async114-14.nas.onetel.net.uk [212.67.110.114]) by cpq-trend01.onetel.co.uk (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g3QIUsR4028053 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:31:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:36:49 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002901c1eb5b$3ac7abc0$b84ee150@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002901c1eb5b$3ac7abc0$b84ee150@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> The original problem appeared when I discovered that TDs >> in France and TDs in England rule differently. >+=+ If this is the problem perhaps we had better know >what the law book in French says. How does it translate >the words "but see (b) following" ? > Do we have a difference in the meaning of the law or >a difference in the judgement of what is "such information >as to damage the non-offending side"? As you know from reading this thread there are two outstanding differences of opinion as to how we approach this. The French view is that since the insufficient bid is not UI partner may use the information from it. L27B1B then only applies if you reach a contract unlikely to be reached if the insufficient bid had not occurred. The English view is that players are not really meant to use the information from the insufficient bid. john Probst, for example, kept going on about how he would have adjusted if the TD had not made an error by not telling the players the Laws. Of course, the TD did tell the players the Laws. The EBL TDG deals with a special case where players can deduce something more about the reason for the insufficient bid. It does not deal with the general case at all. Your view is so far unexpressed as far as I can see, as is mine. > Has any French Director contributed to this brief >thread? Il faut aller droit au 'but'. French TDs do not need to. The majority of posters, including Ton, have supported the French view. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 27 04:48:34 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3QIkqq18314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:46:53 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailrelay1 (relay2.onetel.co.uk [212.36.181.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g3QIkbH18297 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:46:38 +1000 (EST) Received: from 212.36.181.100 by mailrelay1 (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:31:50 +0100 Received: from onetel.co.uk (async114-14.nas.onetel.net.uk [212.67.110.114]) by cpq-trend01.onetel.co.uk (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g3QIUsR4028052 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:31:15 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:47:15 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 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 >Which you may translate in agreeing with the decision from the AC. So put me >in the group of the 3, allowing an artificial score here if needed (when >+500 would be less than 60%). Based on a liberal interpretation of Law 12A2, >considering this case as one which can't be restored to make the board >playable. This we do in the Netherlands and in the ACBL and in the EBL and >probably in France. So fire me. Liberal? Hmmmm! L12A2 is just nothing to do with this situation, Ton. You have completed a board, so why use L12A2? You have a L12C2 situation, so why use L12A2? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 27 04:48:33 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3QIkXW18293 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:46:33 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailrelay1 (relay2.onetel.co.uk [212.36.181.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id g3QIkMH18288 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 04:46:24 +1000 (EST) Received: from 212.36.181.100 by mailrelay1 (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:31:34 +0100 Received: from onetel.co.uk (async114-14.nas.onetel.net.uk [212.67.110.114]) by cpq-trend01.onetel.co.uk (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g3QIUsR3028055 for ; Fri, 26 Apr 2002 19:30:56 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:30:48 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Miss Leading? References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020423160304.00a7e640@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <5.1.0.14.0.20020423160304.00a7e640@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain >Gottcheiner writes >>At 13:41 19/04/2002 -0700, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>>>From: David Stevenson >>>> They have fully disclosed their agreement which seems to be to lead >>>>the 1st, 3rd or 5th card. That is their agreement: that is what they >>>>do: that is what they did. WTP? >>> >>> The problem is that there's additional information that helps them >>> decide whether to lead 1st, 3rd, or 5th. Have you determined that this >>> information need not be disclosed? >> >>AG : it has to be dislosed, *if* it exists. The evidence we've seen until >>now doesn't hint that it exists. Quite to the contrary, the player's >>response hereabove seems to mean that they have no firm agreement as to >>whether they lead the 6 or the 2 (or perhaps they do it at random). If this >>is right, you can't expect them to tell more, because they don't know more. >> >> >No. This isn't the case. From K-empty-fifth they lead fifth and from >from King-ten-nine-fifth they lead the 9. This has to be disclosed, *and >wasn't*. I adjust. In what way was it not disclosed? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Apr 27 19:47:08 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3R9k9w19065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:46:09 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3R9k3H19061 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 19:46:04 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.83.237] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 171Oah-0000zT-00; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:34:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c1edce$e4be30c0$ed53e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" References: <000701c1eacc$e9801d80$6700a8c0@nwtyb> <002901c1eb5b$3ac7abc0$b84ee150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 09:49:26 +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: Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient bid - direct question . > > Your view is so far unexpressed as far as I can see, > as is mine. > > > Has any French Director contributed to this brief > >thread? Il faut aller droit au 'but'. > > French TDs do not need to. The majority of posters, > including Ton, have supported the French view. > +=+ You will have seen my remark that in English the natural meaning of the words is that L27B1(b) exists and is not restricted in its meaning by the words "Law 16C2 does not apply to this situation" in (a); the effect of 'but' is crucial. I have been wondering if the foreign translators had not appreciated this, but as I understand the French text it is not different. The Director has power under the law to determine that an insufficient bid conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side. The Law does not add any statement controlling his exercise of this power. Whilst sponsoring organizations have no basis for regulating the Director's exercise of his discretion in this, unless we can show applicable regulatory powers outside of L80F, they do issue guidance to their TDs (and TDs for reasons inter alia of career preservation tend to follow such guidance). I found myself in disagreement with ton over the example quoted, and beyond defending the English language have not wished to extend the difference of opinion - we both hate such occasions when they arise. My disagreement was based upon the guidance given by Kaplan in 1985-87 and upon the EBL conformance with it, published in 1992. As to the generality of the matter, my opinion is that the concept of 27B1(b) is to disallow use of any information from the insufficient bid that makes it significantly easier to determine the desirable contract, or to avoid the undesirable, and is not restricted solely to cases where it would be problematic that the best contract would be reached in an auction without the irregularity. The case of the IB with opening values was only cited as an example of such circumstances, as the 1992 commentary makes clear - see 27.5(i). Now I readily agree that the above offers a principle and is not specific as to cases. We left the Law in that state and I am disinclined to restrict the Director in matters where the law calls upon him to exercise bridge judgement. I do not believe bridge judgement is a matter for the legislator - it is the prerogative of the appeals committee and we should not trespass into its field. In this I am not saying that individuals may not properly comment upon appeals matters, but am referring to corporate committee actions. ~ 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 Apr 28 00:55:58 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3REsse19184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 00:54:54 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3REsnH19180 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 00:54:49 +1000 (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 g3REh9307081 for ; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:43:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA19513; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 10:43:08 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200204271443.KAA19513@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: Rules Query - Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Ukrfan" (ukrfan@usa.net) writes: > "Sven Pran" ÓÏÏÂÝÉĖ/ÓÏÏÂÝÉĖÁ Ũ ÎÏŨÏÓÔŅČ ÓĖÅÄÕĀÝÅÅ: > news:vfuy8.6684$ph2.162425@news4.ulv.nextra.no... >> The fact that the "information" in a message is irrelevant or meaningless >> when measured against the conditions of the sender does not alter the >> fact that the message contains information. > > But that "message" didn't contain information at all. > >> When we rule on a claimed variation in tempo we first judge whether >> such variation can be established, and if so we rule as for what such >> variation could mean for the receiver. > >> It is completely irrelevant whether >> the "sender" of that information "told" the truth or a lie in the message. > > It's complete nonsense. If there wasn't *truthful* information, there wasn't > damage. Period. > > Regards, Yury > > How about this: the medium (a hesitation) *is* the message; the content (UI) is the audience. It is irrelevant that the UI was truthful or not, the receiver (audience: partner, opps, director, appeal committee) of the UI thought it was, it was acted on, and now there is a judgement that there should be an adjustement (or not). 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 Sun Apr 28 01:25:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3RFP7A19209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 01:25:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3RFP1H19205 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 01:25:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from nwtyb (ti211310a080-0876.bb.online.no [80.212.211.108]) by mail46.fg.online.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA18055; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 17:13:07 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <000901c1edfe$08ff26e0$6700a8c0@nwtyb> From: "Sven Pran" To: , References: <200204271443.KAA19513@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Rules Query - Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 17:13:06 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This comes from a thread on rec.games.bridge Frankly I see no reason to suddenly cross-post on BLML. Sven ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. L. Edwards" To: Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2002 4:43 PM Subject: [BLML] Re: Rules Query - > "Ukrfan" (ukrfan@usa.net) writes: > > "Sven Pran" ÓÏÏÂÝÉĖ/ÓÏÏÂÝÉĖÁ Ũ ÎÏŨÏÓÔŅČ ÓĖÅÄÕĀÝÅÅ: > > news:vfuy8.6684$ph2.162425@news4.ulv.nextra.no... > >> The fact that the "information" in a message is irrelevant or meaningless > >> when measured against the conditions of the sender does not alter the > >> fact that the message contains information. > > > > But that "message" didn't contain information at all. > > > >> When we rule on a claimed variation in tempo we first judge whether > >> such variation can be established, and if so we rule as for what such > >> variation could mean for the receiver. > > > >> It is completely irrelevant whether > >> the "sender" of that information "told" the truth or a lie in the message. > > > > It's complete nonsense. If there wasn't *truthful* information, there wasn't > > damage. Period. > > > > Regards, Yury > > > > > How about this: the medium (a hesitation) *is* the message; the > content (UI) is the audience. It is irrelevant that the UI was > truthful or not, the receiver (audience: partner, opps, director, > appeal committee) of the UI thought it was, it was acted on, and > now there is a judgement that there should be an adjustement (or not). > 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/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 28 12:42:17 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3S2eTs19583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 12:40:29 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.1.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3S2eNH19579 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 12:40:24 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 300DC488D5; Sat, 27 Apr 2002 22:28:46 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 22:28:25 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk There's been a great deal of discussion of late as to the role of Appeals Committees in the ACBL, with some suggesting that ACs be eliminated entirely. In an attempt to ascertain whether committees are improving rulings overall I've undertaken an analysis of the Toronto casebook. The casebook is available to ACBL members at http://www.acbl.org/casebooks/Toronto_sum01.pdf I'd have liked to rely on the Expert Panel's rating of the decisions. I found this was not practical, in large part it's because the Panel's rating includes criteria other than the correctness of the decision. In particular the Panel tends to downgrade a committee decision when they judge that an "Appeal Without Merit Warning" was merited but not assessed. Instead I have reviewed each case individually, relying on the panel's comments and ratings to help inform my own judgement. I have not judged that an AC improved a director's ruling unless the panel gave the AC's ruling a higher rating, and I have not judged that an AC worsened a director's ruling unless the panel gave the director's ruling a higher rating. Rich Colker summarizes the appeals in the back of each casebook. He categorizes each decision as "Good" or "Poor". I didn't find this sufficient for my purposes for two reasons. One is that some cases are too close to call -- even were I to disagree with such a decision I would not want to call it poor. Another is that his categorizations sometimes appear arbitrary to me. My methods are not rigorous, and I'd appreciate any suggestions as to method or as to the categorization of particular cases. I'd also love to hear whether anyone has undertaken similar analysis for other tournaments, in the ACBL or elsewhere. Here's what I found: There were 73 cases in Toronto. 36 were decided by Panels, 37 by ACs. Of the 37 the AC ruled as the director did 20 times. I examined the 17 cases where the AC ruled differently than the table director. In three cases (30, 64, 65) the screening director improved the ruling made at the table, and the AC made the same ruling as the screening director. In one case (37) the screening director worsened the ruling made at the table -- the committee improved both rulings. In nine cases (33, 40, 41, 42, 49, 50, 60, 63, 68) the committee improved the ruling made at the table. On one of these, case 49, the committee made what I consider to be an illegal score adjustment. The committee never the less improved on the director's ruling. I judged four cases (5, 35, 48, and 62) as too close to call. What surprised me was that I found not a single case where an AC clearly worsened the director ruling. Even in the four cases I judged too close to call the expert panel rated the AC ruling higher than they rated the table ruling. While there is surely room for improvement in the ACs, it seems that in terms of quality of rulings they are doing substantially more good than harm. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 28 15:00:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3S4xvV19640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:59:57 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3S4xpH19636 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:59:52 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 6907F981CF; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 00:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 00:47:58 -0400 To: "Kooijman, A." From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: RE: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > The Committee Decision: > > The Committee decided that the 5C bid was directly connected to the > misexplanation which, combined with the subsequent auction, created > a clearly erroneous picture for West. The Committee discussed > probable results if West had been told over 4H that North had either > the pointed suits or the rounded suits and decided that there were > too many possibilities. After considering awarding E/W Average Plus, > the Committee decided that +500 defending 4S doubled was the best > result that was likely. Therefore, E/W's award was limited to the > lesser of +500 or Average Plus; N/S were correspondingly assigned > the better of -500 or Average Minus. At 9:53 AM +0200 4/25/02, Kooijman, A. wrote: >Could you show me which law does say that we should not avoid abnormally >good or bad results? I don't understand. Are you implying that the laws allow the director to change the score as he pleases, except where they prohibit him from doing so? >Interpretation again, isn't it? And I do read L12C as saying that we really >should avoid such results, though more for the innocent than for the guilty >side. I don't understand this either. Forgive me for quoting the law in question: "When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable." 12C2 instructs us as to what the assigned adjusted score is to be. Here the committee had no trouble determining the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. 12C3 is not in force. What basis in law have we for assigning EW any score other than +500? -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 28 23:08:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SD79k19825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:07:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl (pandora.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SD6uH19812 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:07:01 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-223-107.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.223.107]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B60B4381B9; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:55:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00b201c1eeb3$156ff520$6bdff1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: , "Adam Wildavsky" Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:33:24 +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 >What surprised me was that I found not a single case where an AC >clearly worsened the director ruling. Even in the four cases I judged >too close to call the expert panel rated the AC ruling higher than >they rated the table ruling. While there is surely room for >improvement in the ACs, it seems that in terms of quality of rulings >they are doing substantially more good than harm. > >-- >Adam Wildavsky Well done sir, thank you very much. Without some analysis no improvement but just suppositions. This seems to say that just accepting the present TD-decision as the final one is not a right development. It not necessarily means that we need an appeal procedure as we have it now. Educating TD's could help, but adding advisors with bridge knowledge to the TD could also be a solution. Personally I think that to be the direction in which we need to go. Because I prefer one and only one decisison. 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 Apr 28 23:08:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SD77519824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:07:07 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl (pandora.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SD6vH19813 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:06:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-223-107.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.223.107]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C2BA3877C; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:55:19 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00b301c1eeb3$15dc4b80$6bdff1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "Kooijman, A." , "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 12:00:44 +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 Kooijman, A. wrote: >>Could you show me which law does say that we should not avoid abnormally >>good or bad results? > >I don't understand. Are you implying that the laws allow the director >to change the score as he pleases, except where they prohibit him >from doing so? This remark was a reaction on what Marvin wrote, which you deleted: 'The AC motivation seems to be the avoidance of an abnormally good or bad matchpoint result due to a score adjustment, in disregard of what the laws say.' I was and still am quite interested in the law(s) supporting this statement. It should be any AC's job to avoid etc., don't you think? Answering your question above directly, I am willing to say 'yes' as long as his reasons are to assign an equity based score, more for the innocent side than for the offenders, who might be awarded less than expectancy gives them. ton Your questions below I hope to have answered in another mail answering David Stevenson. > >>Interpretation again, isn't it? And I do read L12C as saying that we really >>should avoid such results, though more for the innocent than for the guilty >>side. > >I don't understand this either. Forgive me for quoting the law in question: > >"When the Director awards an assigned adjusted score in place of a >result actually obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a >non-offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the >irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most >unfavorable result that was at all probable." > >12C2 instructs us as to what the assigned adjusted score is to be. >Here the committee had no trouble determining the most favorable >result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. 12C3 is not >in force. What basis in law have we for assigning EW any score other >than +500? > >-- >Adam Wildavsky -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 28 23:08:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SD76M19823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:07:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.tiscali.nl (pandora.tiscali.nl [195.241.76.179]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SD6uH19811 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:06:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from tkooij (xs241-223-107.dial.tiscali.nl [195.241.223.107]) by pandora.tiscali.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D615375F7; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:55:18 +0200 (MET DST) Message-ID: <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij> From: "Ton Kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:18:36 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 > >>Which you may translate in agreeing with the decision from the AC. So put me >>in the group of the 3, allowing an artificial score here if needed (when >>+500 would be less than 60%). Based on a liberal interpretation of Law 12A2, >>considering this case as one which can't be restored to make the board >>playable. This we do in the Netherlands and in the ACBL and in the EBL and >>probably in France. So fire me. > > Liberal? Hmmmm! > > L12A2 is just nothing to do with this situation, Ton. You have >completed a board, so why use L12A2? You have a L12C2 situation, so why >use L12A2? > >-- >David Stevenson I know your (English) approach very well and you know ours, applied in many other countries. So I also know that we have to alter law 12 to get a more obvious possibility to adjust in artificial scores when a board has been played. For the moment we consider L12A2 in combination with12C1, first line applicable in this situation. This means that we read 'no result can be obtained' as the TD not being able to establish a (bridge) result, due to the complexity of the possibilities had the irregularity not occurred. And we interpret 12A2 in the same way. Once more this seems to me a situation where conviction about the correctness of ones own approach combined with tradition, saying it mildly, blocks the willingness to see other possibilities of interpretation. The reason for this all being that I think that in this way better adjusted scores are given. Do you know that we had cases in recent EBL-events in which the TD made a weighted score including 4 possible results, all getting a percentage of expectance and suggesting a precision which is ridiculous? I even have the experience that percentages were changed to get a result which is closer to average plus. Do you allow me to prefer 'our' interpretation then? ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 28 23:15:26 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SDFFk19853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:15:15 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SDFAH19849 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:15:10 +1000 (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 g3SD3U309285 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 09:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id JAA27321; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 09:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 09:03:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200204281303.JAA27321@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Rules Query - Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >This comes from a thread on rec.games.bridge >Frankly I see no reason to suddenly cross-post >on BLML. >Sven Frankly, I don't either. I thought I had sent it to RGB. Lately, I have been digesting both RGB and BLML so that I could read them offline. I have not been contributing much (some would say, "and a good thing, too") because I didn't know how to edit the digest. A couple of weeks ago, my sister showed me how to do this, and this was my first attempt. I don't know why this post ended up here. I promise not to try this again untill I check with my sister. :-) Sorry for the inconvenience, 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 Sun Apr 28 23:50:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SDoL019879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:50:21 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3SDoAH19870 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:50:10 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.22.10] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 171onO-000H3B-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:32:54 +0100 Message-ID: <001001c1eeba$2935bd40$0a16e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 11:17:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Kooijman, A." Cc: Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 5:47 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 > > 12C2 instructs us as to what the assigned adjusted score is to be. > Here the committee had no trouble determining the most favorable > result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. 12C3 is > not in force. What basis in law have we for assigning EW any > score other than +500? > +=+ In the casebook I drew attention to the WBFLC decision of 30th August 1998: <" A change was made by the committee in the interpretation of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. "> (Present: Kooijman, Endicott, Anderson, Joan Gerard, Ghosh, Martel, Becky Rogers, Schoder, Wignall) Put into English [:-)] this means that where an advantage is triggered by the infraction, even if it results from gambling action by non-offender, the offender does not gain from it; on the other hand the non-offender is not relieved of the consequences of his own "evidently irrational, wild or gambling" action. Of Appeal 49 I formed the view that West's 5C is wild or gambling when it requires an unlikely specific holding in East to make 5C and he knows East has defensive values in the red suits to add to the two, perhaps three, tricks that he can cash himself. So I followed the 1998 re-interpretation, and on that basis EW keep their own table score.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Apr 28 23:50:39 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SDoOF19880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:50:24 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3SDoHH19875 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:50:17 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.22.10] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 171onV-000H3B-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:33:01 +0100 Message-ID: <001201c1eeba$2d5ecd80$0a16e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Adam Wildavsky" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 14:35:39 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 3:28 AM Subject: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis > > Rich Colker summarizes the appeals in the back of > each casebook. He categorizes each decision as > "Good" or "Poor". I didn't find this sufficient for my > purposes for two reasons. One is that some cases > are too close to call -- even were I to disagree with > such a decision I would not want to call it poor. > Another is that his categorizations sometimes > appear arbitrary to me. > +=+ Rich does have strong personal views and his bias comes out at times. But he is devoted to the good of the game and is working hard for it under his own lights. +=+ > > My methods are not rigorous, and I'd appreciate any > suggestions as to method or as to the categorization > of particular cases. I'd also love to hear whether > anyone has undertaken similar analysis for other > tournaments, in the ACBL or elsewhere. > +=+ Not I, but it is my view that we are seeing steady, unspectacular improvement in ACBL AC actions - with the occasional spectacular howler. This is encouraging especially given that the only visible educational tool is the regular appearance of the casebooks. I think you are right to draw attention to the underlying good in contrast to the eyecatching jumps into the abyss. +=+ > > What surprised me was that I found not a single case > where an AC clearly worsened the director ruling. > Even in the four cases I judged too close to call the > expert panel rated the AC ruling higher than they > rated the table ruling. While there is surely room for > improvement in the ACs, it seems that in terms of > quality of rulings they are doing substantially more > good than harm. > > -- > Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC > +=+ Broadly true, I think. The panel of AC chairmen could benefit from a programme to develop their awareness of issues and techniques. I do not know how much it happens in ACBL committees, but the worst feature I have found in working with ACBL personalities in ACs is that a few of them enter into debates with players across the committee table; I believe strongly that the duty of the AC member is to *listen* and the member's contribution should be to ask questions, listen to answers, gather information, form a view as to what is credible (and what has been added to the 'facts' in the interim between ruling and hearing). Of course there are many of them who do just that, but it takes only one member not under control to damage the process, and I can assure you it is galling when I am seeking to draw out the player with a subtle question, to lose the point because another committee member jumps headlong into a confrontation with the player about something said. The ACBL should also come to terms with the fact that the task of an AC is to hear an appeal against a director's ruling, to review the ruling (see Law 92A), not to make its own ruling from scratch with fresh facts and new arguments; the appellant has to show that the judgement of the Director is flawed if he is to win his appeal. ~ 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 Apr 29 01:39:28 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SFck119959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:38:46 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (nuser.dybdal.dk [62.242.254.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SFceH19955 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:38:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 5001C107508 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 17:27:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 17:27:01 +0200 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <00b301c1eeb3$15dc4b80$6bdff1c3@tkooij> In-Reply-To: <00b301c1eeb3$15dc4b80$6bdff1c3@tkooij> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.91/32.564 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id g3SFcgH19956 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 12:00:44 +0200, "Ton Kooijman" wrote: >This remark was a reaction on what Marvin wrote, which you deleted: > >'The AC motivation seems to be the avoidance of an abnormally good or bad >matchpoint result due to a score adjustment, in disregard of what the laws >say.' > >I was and still am quite interested in the law(s) supporting this statement. >It should be any AC's job to avoid etc., don't you think? Answering your >question above directly, I am willing to say 'yes' as long as his reasons >are to assign an equity based score, more for the innocent side than for the >offenders, who might be awarded less than expectancy gives them. This depends on what you mean by "abnormally good or bad results". For instance, it happens quite often that a pair has a bidding misunderstanding which would naturally lead to an extreme result, but then avoid the extreme result with the help of UI. In this case, it is clearly the duty of the TD and the AC to recognize that the correct bridge result on the board is an extreme result and to restore it. The non-offending side has a right to that extremely good score, just as they have a right to a good score in any other situation where their opponents make a costly mistake. This is also what L12C2 says. It seems to me that too many TDs and ACs are reluctant to adjust to dramatic-sounding figures, probably because they forget that the dramatic result is the (probable) correct bridge result of the board. Giving A+ to a pair that was destined for +2800 without the irregularity, destroys the bridge result completely and has nothing to do with equity. So IMO TDs and ACs need to learn not to be afraid to assign large scores. On the other hand, they should not assign +2800 just because there is a 1% chance that that would be the result - if that is what you mean by "abnormally good or bad results", then I agree. But the current problem is IMO that TDs and ACs assign large scores too rarely rather than too often. In the case that started this discussion, the committe was able to judge that "+500 defending 4S doubled was the best result that was likely". It seems to me not only illegal, but also unreasonable to bring artificial scores into it at all. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 01:43:41 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SFhai19975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:43:36 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3SFhVH19971 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 01:43:31 +1000 (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 g3SFVlc21447 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 08:31:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <000001c1eec9$c1f23e00$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 23:43:40 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 Wildavsky" > Marvin L. French wrote: > There's been a great deal of discussion of late as to the role of > Appeals Committees in the ACBL, with some suggesting that ACs be > eliminated entirely. > > In an attempt to ascertain whether committees are improving rulings > overall I've undertaken an analysis of the Toronto casebook. The > casebook is available to ACBL members at > > http://www.acbl.org/casebooks/Toronto_sum01.pdf > Good job, Adam. You might want to copy your e-mail to the chairman of the C&C committee, Bart Bramley. I don't know his e-mail address, as the one I had didn't work. Interesting that the casebooks are now available to everyone. Formerly they were accessible only to paid-up members, and even now the casebooks are accessed from the ACBL homepage via the MEMBERSHIP menu. There is a new sign-in process for paid-up members, but it isn't working right. Wasted 1/2 hour on it. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, California -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 02:13:53 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SGDYX20001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 02:13:34 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3SGDTH19997 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 02:13:29 +1000 (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 g3SG1qc29979 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 09:01:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <002301c1eecd$f4e5ece0$2d2fd2cc@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <001001c1eeba$2935bd40$0a16e150@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 08:57:22 -0700 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 > Of > Appeal 49 I formed the view that West's 5C is wild or gambling > when it requires an unlikely specific holding in East to make 5C > and he knows East has defensive values in the red suits to add > to the two, perhaps three, tricks that he can cash himself. So I > followed the 1998 re-interpretation, and on that basis EW keep > their own table score.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ East's double of 3D with Jxx is also strange, leading West to think that his Qx of diamonds is worth something. Perhaps not irrational, however. West's pass over 3C was as irrational as his 5C bid. He has a cheap opportunity to show primary clubs for his 2C opening and fails to take it? (I'm assuming the 2C opening was artificial, which we are not told.) 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 Apr 29 03:16:42 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SHG8v20065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 03:16:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SHG3H20061 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 03:16:03 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 201F6981AA; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:04:25 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <001001c1eeba$2935bd40$0a16e150@dodona> References: <001001c1eeba$2935bd40$0a16e150@dodona> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:04:20 -0400 To: "Grattan Endicott" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Cc: "bridge-laws" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:17 AM +0100 4/28/02, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Adam Wildavsky" >To: "Kooijman, A." >Cc: >Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 5:47 AM >Subject: RE: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 > > > 12C2 instructs us as to what the assigned adjusted score is to be. >> Here the committee had no trouble determining the most favorable >> result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. 12C3 is >> not in force. What basis in law have we for assigning EW any >> score other than +500? >> >+=+ In the casebook I drew attention to the WBFLC decision >of 30th August 1998: > <" A change was made by the committee in the interpretation >of the law. Henceforward the law is to be applied so that >advantage gained by an offender (see Law 72B1), provided it is >related to the infraction and not obtained solely by the good play >of the offenders, shall be construed as an advantage in the table >score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage >to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if >redress is to be given in an adjusted score. "> > (Present: Kooijman, Endicott, Anderson, Joan Gerard, Ghosh, >Martel, Becky Rogers, Schoder, Wignall) > Put into English [:-)] this means that where an advantage is >triggered by the infraction, even if it results from gambling action >by non-offender, the offender does not gain from it; on the >other hand the non-offender is not relieved of the consequences >of his own "evidently irrational, wild or gambling" action. Of >Appeal 49 I formed the view that West's 5C is wild or gambling >when it requires an unlikely specific holding in East to make 5C >and he knows East has defensive values in the red suits to add >to the two, perhaps three, tricks that he can cash himself. So I >followed the 1998 re-interpretation, and on that basis EW keep >their own table score.. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ If I understand correctly this codifies the "Kaplan Doctine" proposed by Edgar in a response to Eric Landau published in the August 1973 issue of The Bridge World. I'll grant that one could consider allowing the NOS score to stand, though the committee judged otherwise. What Marvin and I found questionable was the mixed score adjustment -- the lesser of +500 or Ave+. Absent 12C3 I find no basis in law for that, and I was surprised that no one on the casebook panel addressed the issue. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 03:35:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SHZQ820083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 03:35:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SHZLH20079 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 03:35:21 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail3.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 933169820D; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:23:43 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00b301c1eeb3$15dc4b80$6bdff1c3@tkooij> References: <00b301c1eeb3$15dc4b80$6bdff1c3@tkooij> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 13:23:37 -0400 To: "Ton Kooijman" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Cc: "Kooijman, A." , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:00 PM +0200 4/28/02, Ton Kooijman wrote: > Kooijman, A. wrote: >>>Could you show me which law does say that we should not avoid abnormally >>>good or bad results? >> >>I don't understand. Are you implying that the laws allow the director >>to change the score as he pleases, except where they prohibit him >>from doing so? > > >This remark was a reaction on what Marvin wrote, which you deleted: > >'The AC motivation seems to be the avoidance of an abnormally good or bad >matchpoint result due to a score adjustment, in disregard of what the laws >say.' > >I was and still am quite interested in the law(s) supporting this statement. 12C2. >It should be any AC's job to avoid etc., don't you think? No, I think the job of the director and the AC is to apply the laws as written. >Answering your >question above directly, I am willing to say 'yes' as long as his reasons >are to assign an equity based score, more for the innocent side than for the >offenders, who might be awarded less than expectancy gives them. That might be the case were 12C3 in effect. If the ACBL wanted such adjustments to be legal they would have instituted 12C3. In its absence surely such an adjustment is illegal. To think otherwise would be to allow an AC to overrule the decisions of the ACBL Laws Commission. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 04:44:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SIhVk20148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 04:43:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SIhNH20141 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 04:43:23 +1000 (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 171tSX-0009PC-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:31:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:56:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Rules Query - References: <200204281303.JAA27321@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200204281303.JAA27321@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards writes >I promise not to try this again untill I check with my >sister. :-) This seems a good rule for a number of people! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 04:44:01 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SIhVE20149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 04:43:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SIhNH20140 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 04:43:23 +1000 (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 171tSX-0009PE-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:31:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:55:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 References: <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij> In-Reply-To: <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman writes >>Kooijman, A. writes >> >>>Which you may translate in agreeing with the decision from the AC. So put >me >>>in the group of the 3, allowing an artificial score here if needed (when >>>+500 would be less than 60%). Based on a liberal interpretation of Law >12A2, >>>considering this case as one which can't be restored to make the board >>>playable. This we do in the Netherlands and in the ACBL and in the EBL >and >>>probably in France. So fire me. >> >> Liberal? Hmmmm! >> >> L12A2 is just nothing to do with this situation, Ton. You have >>completed a board, so why use L12A2? You have a L12C2 situation, so why >>use L12A2? >> >>-- >>David Stevenson > > >I know your (English) approach very well and you know ours, applied in many >other countries. So I also know that we have to alter law 12 to get a more >obvious possibility to adjust in artificial scores when a board has been >played. For the moment we consider L12A2 in combination with12C1, first line >applicable in this situation. This means that we read 'no result can be >obtained' as the TD not being able to establish a (bridge) result, due to >the complexity of the possibilities had the irregularity not occurred. And >we interpret 12A2 in the same way. >Once more this seems to me a situation where conviction about the >correctness of ones own approach combined with tradition, saying it mildly, >blocks the willingness to see other possibilities of interpretation. The >reason for this all being that I think that in this way better adjusted >scores are given. >Do you know that we had cases in recent EBL-events in which the TD made a >weighted score including 4 possible results, all getting a percentage of >expectance and suggesting a precision which is ridiculous? I even have the >experience that percentages were changed to get a result which is closer to >average plus. > >Do you allow me to prefer 'our' interpretation then? I am sorry: you have lost me here. It sounds as though you are saying that if the Law book says do something, you are ignoring it if you feel something else would be better. No, I am not aware of this approach being used elsewhere in the world. I do not believe it is common to apply L12A2 instead of L12C2 when you do not like the L12C2 result: this is the first I have heard of it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Nanki Poo's official birthday is on May 8th this year Emails to Pictures of Nanki Poo at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 05:29:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SJRxa20187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 05:27:59 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.1.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SJRsH20183 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 05:27:54 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 959D98F9D; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 15:16:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <001001c1eeba$2935bd40$0a16e150@dodona> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 15:15:16 -0400 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 1:04 PM -0400 4/28/02, I wrote: >What Marvin and I found questionable was the mixed score adjustment >-- the lesser of +500 or Ave+. Absent 12C3 I find no basis in law >for that, and I was surprised that no one on the casebook panel >addressed the issue. My mistake. DWS wrote this in the casebook: "The committee decided 4S doubled was a reasonable decision, but then went completely haywire with a pointless and illegal A+/A- decision. Why?" I'd like to know why myself -- I'll ask the committee chair and relay his answer. Rich Colker called the A+/A- part of the adjustment "nonsense" -- you know by now that I agree. Ideally the screening director would not allow the committee to make such an adjustment. In practice directors allow committees wide leeway. -- Adam Wildavsky Extreme Programmer Tameware, LLC adam@tameware.com http://www.tameware.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 08:58:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SMwAN20265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:58:10 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SMw4H20261 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:58:05 +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 g3SMklx02205 for ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:46:48 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 23:27:45 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 References: <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij> In-Reply-To: <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij>, Ton Kooijman writes >>Kooijman, A. writes >> >>>Which you may translate in agreeing with the decision from the AC. So put >me >>>in the group of the 3, allowing an artificial score here if needed (when >>>+500 would be less than 60%). Based on a liberal interpretation of Law >12A2, >>>considering this case as one which can't be restored to make the board >>>playable. This we do in the Netherlands and in the ACBL and in the EBL >and >>>probably in France. So fire me. >> >> Liberal? Hmmmm! >> >> L12A2 is just nothing to do with this situation, Ton. You have >>completed a board, so why use L12A2? You have a L12C2 situation, so why >>use L12A2? >> >>-- >>David Stevenson > > >I know your (English) approach very well and you know ours, applied in many >other countries. So I also know that we have to alter law 12 to get a more >obvious possibility to adjust in artificial scores when a board has been >played. For the moment we consider L12A2 in combination with12C1, first line >applicable in this situation. This means that we read 'no result can be >obtained' as the TD not being able to establish a (bridge) result, due to >the complexity of the possibilities had the irregularity not occurred. And >we interpret 12A2 in the same way. >Once more this seems to me a situation where conviction about the >correctness of ones own approach combined with tradition, saying it mildly, >blocks the willingness to see other possibilities of interpretation. The >reason for this all being that I think that in this way better adjusted >scores are given. >Do you know that we had cases in recent EBL-events in which the TD made a >weighted score including 4 possible results, all getting a percentage of >expectance and suggesting a precision which is ridiculous? I even have the >experience that percentages were changed to get a result which is closer to >average plus. > >Do you allow me to prefer 'our' interpretation then? > We routinely will split and weight scores. The best I've produced is 5 weighted scores for the NOs, and 2 for the OS. It took about 15 seconds to explain to the players, and everyone thought it was about right. It took a bit longer to decide on it, but I'm paid to do that. What's your problem ton? > >ton > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 09:36:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3SNa4N20287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:36:04 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3SNZwH20283 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:36:00 +1000 (EST) Received: from host217-35-42-66.in-addr.btopenworld.com ([217.35.42.66] helo=gordonrainsford.co.uk) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #8) id 171y1j-0007im-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:24:19 +0100 Message-ID: <3CCC849D.4090802@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:24:13 +0100 From: Gordon Rainsford User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020315 Netscape6/6.2.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Rules Query - References: <200204281303.JAA27321@freenet10.carleton.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > A. L. Edwards writes > > >>I promise not to try this again untill I check with my >>sister. :-) >> > > This seems a good rule for a number of people! > > Including some who are Only Children. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 16:41:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3T6djH20434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:39:45 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mk-smarthost-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 g3T6ddH20430 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:39:40 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.39.216] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 1724YH-000GG6-00; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:22:21 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c1ef47$2f443440$d827e150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij> Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:27:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 4:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 > > No, I am not aware of this approach being used > elsewhere in the world.I do not believe it is common > to apply L12A2 instead of L12C2 when you do not > like the L12C2 result: this is the first I have heard > of it. > +=+ I am unable to speak to the practices in many NBOs. So far as experience of WBF and EBL ACs goes, I think when a result had been obtained the WBF did award some artificial adjustments before 1987, but certainly not since. My experience of EBL ACs goes back to the 1970's and I do not recall it ever happening in this sphere. There are advocates of a policy that the Laws should be applied to the letter everywhere. There are those who find some basis that is not in the English text of the Laws for sometimes going against the language of the Laws.There is not the slightest doubt, so far as understanding English is concerned, that the conditions for using 12C1 and 12C2 are specified in absolute terms in those laws; 12C2 is precise in saying that if a result is obtained after an irregularity any adjustment of it is by a 12C2 adjusted score: it refers to a result 'actually obtained', there is no suggestion that it needs be a normal. result - indeed if it were why would there be score adjustment? Equally uncompromising in its language is 12C1 - when owing to an irregularity 'no result can be obtained' - if a result is obtained then 12C1 is denied to the Director. Again normalcy is not an issue. Turning to Law 12A2 we again have an explicit statement as to when it applies. Nothing to do with a result on the board in this, it applies when the Director cannot create conditions in which 'normal play' can occur. He stops the board then and there and applies 12A2. If he allows play to continue on the board it implies a judgement that normal play is possible. So much for the English language and for the force of law. If NBOs are using these laws in circumstances other than those that they specify it is not because the meaning of the language used leaves scope for misunderstanding. ~ 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 Apr 29 17:58:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3T7vWn20495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:57:32 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3T7vQH20491 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:57:27 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-49034.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.63.138]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g3T7jZL04452 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:45:35 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CCCFA61.6030602@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 09:46:41 +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] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 References: <001001c1eeba$2935bd40$0a16e150@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > I'll grant that one could consider allowing the NOS score to stand, > though the committee judged otherwise. What Marvin and I found > questionable was the mixed score adjustment -- the lesser of +500 or > Ave+. Absent 12C3 I find no basis in law for that, and I was surprised > that no one on the casebook panel addressed the issue. Have you paused to consider that the Committee may have been unwilling to check the scores, but felt that 60% was the most they could award ? If the committee did have access to the scores, they could have checked them and then awarded just the one score. Of course that seems like a lazy thing to do. The committee ought not to be swayed by scores. But then again, they are there to judge relative likelihoods of what happens around the room. Why should they not have access to all the data that is available? Of course the action of the committee in deciding that 60% is most they feel they can give can only be explained in terms of equity, and one needs L12C3 to be able to do that. So Adam is right in questioning the AC decision on those grounds. > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Apr 29 23:36:13 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3TDZSC20758 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:35:28 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resulb.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3TDZJH20754 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 23:35:20 +1000 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.1.ap (resu)) id PAA08250; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:21:03 +0200 (MEST) for Received: from math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.3.ap (mach)) id PAA21719; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:23:33 +0200 (MET DST) for Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020429145558.00a895d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 15:29:21 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Alain Gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] cutting the link Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, Here is a case where the notion of "cutting the link" between infraction and damage had to be interpreted. I would very much like to read your views about it. Club tournament, matchpoints. West is a promising player, but quite unexperimented. The other three are competent and know eachother well. N S --- Qxxx xx Axx A10xxx Kx AK10xxx Qxxx NS play variable notrumps. East knows this, but West doesn't. NS didn't pre-alert it (which they should have done), and East didn't care to tell his partner. South opens a mini-NT. West bids 2C, intended as Landy. EW do play Landy vs the Belgian standard 15-17 NT, but they didn't discuss what to play vs weak NT, let alone mini-NT. East doesn't alert, perhaps because he doesn't think Landy applies there without discussing it, perhaps influenced by his holding 8 major cards and short clubs. North bids 2NT. If 2C was Landy, 2NT is a transfer to clubs (Rubensohl) If 2C was natural, 2NT is more or less undiscussed (Rubensohl would mean 2NT is a cue, but not really useful since a double would be for T/O). The truth is, nobody plays a natural 2C in Brussels, and it's IOTTMCO you'd rather protect yourself and ask. But do you have to ? After considerable trance, not wanting to ask about a non-alerted bid, not knowing what 2NT would mean over a natural NT, South decides to pass, quite unsuccessfully. North 'knew' 2C was Landy and reacted according to his system. My questions are : a) should the TD assume that EW play Landy, because they play it vs other forms of NT openings, and there is no hint at any contrary agreement here ? Or is the right answer 'undiscussed' ? If i'Landy' is the answer, there is MI. If not, please skip b) and c) b) did South do enough to protect himself ? c) was South's pass such an absurdity that the link between the MI (non-alert) and the result is cut ? d) should East have alerted, if only to stammer 'well, perhaps it' a Landy, but really I'm not so sure, since we didn't discuss it' ? And what would then have been your ruling ? e) What would your ruling be if South had asked East, and East had answered 'undiscussed' ? Thank you for your advice. 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 Apr 30 00:19:04 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3TEIpe20785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:18:51 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3TEIkH20781 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:18:46 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-49034.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.63.138]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g3TE6mq02940 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:06:48 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CCD53B9.1040404@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:07:53 +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] cutting the link References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020429145558.00a895d0@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 Hello Alain, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > Here is a case where the notion of "cutting the link" between infraction > and damage had to be interpreted. > I would very much like to read your views about it. > > Club tournament, matchpoints. West is a promising player, but quite > unexperimented. The other three are competent and know eachother well. nice lapsus linguae - inexperienced I suppose you mean. Or perhaps not. > > N S > > --- Qxxx > xx Axx > A10xxx Kx > AK10xxx Qxxx > > NS play variable notrumps. East knows this, but West doesn't. NS didn't > pre-alert it (which they should have done), and East didn't care to tell > his partner. > > South opens a mini-NT. West bids 2C, intended as Landy. EW do play Landy > vs the Belgian standard 15-17 NT, but they didn't discuss what to play > vs weak NT, let alone mini-NT. Intended as Landy is the operative word. Since they cannot prove otherwise, the TD must really assume that 2C IS Landy. Otherwise there is no way of playing this game anymore. > East doesn't alert, perhaps because he doesn't think Landy applies there > without discussing it, perhaps influenced by his holding 8 major cards > and short clubs. > North bids 2NT. > > If 2C was Landy, 2NT is a transfer to clubs (Rubensohl) > If 2C was natural, 2NT is more or less undiscussed (Rubensohl would mean > 2NT is a cue, but not really useful since a double would be for T/O). > The truth is, nobody plays a natural 2C in Brussels, and it's IOTTMCO > you'd rather protect yourself and ask. But do you have to ? > After considerable trance, not wanting to ask about a non-alerted bid, > not knowing what 2NT would mean over a natural NT, South decides to > pass, quite unsuccessfully. > North 'knew' 2C was Landy and reacted according to his system. > > My questions are : > a) should the TD assume that EW play Landy, because they play it vs > other forms of NT openings, and there is no hint at any contrary > agreement here ? Or is the right answer 'undiscussed' ? Assume Landy. The fact that N did not alert (he should have done in Belgium), W did not ask, EW did not know how if Landy applied and so on and so on, only makes the case more difficult. If after the ruling EW are damaged because of the non-alert of the 1NT, then we deal with that afterwards. > If i'Landy' is the answer, there is MI. If not, please skip b) and c) > b) did South do enough to protect himself ? South did not ask about an unalerted bid, which is normally alerted. Since in his opinion, the meaning of that bid influences greatly the meaning of his partner's 2NT, I'd say - no, he did not do enough to protect himself. > c) was South's pass such an absurdity that the link between the MI > (non-alert) and the result is cut ? Given that 2Cl was not alerted, thus natural, thus 2NT natural, pass is not an absurdity. IMVHO. > d) should East have alerted, if only to stammer 'well, perhaps it' a > Landy, but really I'm not so sure, since we didn't discuss it' ? And > what would then have been your ruling ? Since we assume that 2C is Landy, East should have alerted. > e) What would your ruling be if South had asked East, and East had > answered 'undiscussed' ? > I would not like it - North's next bid has a meaning that is greatly influenced by the meaning of 2Cl - he should be given one definite answer. I would rule that NS are damaged by the non-alert of 2Cl, and EW are damaged by the non-alert of 1NT. Since no sensible result can be obtained, I'd give an ArtAS. I'd vote Av- for NS, who started the whole thing, and Av for EW, probably more if they can show that 2Cl over mini-no-trump is not Landy. But since E knew NS's NT range, he should have said something at the beginning of the table. > Thank you for your advice. > > 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 Apr 30 01:17:29 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3TFH0c20820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:17:00 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3TFGtH20816 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:16:55 +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 LAA03612 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA28971 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:05:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:05:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204291505.LAA28971@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Alain Gottcheiner > a) should the TD assume that EW play Landy, because they play it vs other > forms of NT openings, and there is no hint at any contrary agreement here ? > Or is the right answer 'undiscussed' ? My vote is to alert and, if asked, explain "We play Landy over strong NT but have not discussed weak or mini." If the mini-notrumpers have an obligation to alert or pre-alert, as Alain says they do, the initial infraction is their side's. However, if East thought the notrump was strong, he would have alerted 2C, so the NS infraction does not excuse East's failure to alert 2C. On the other hand, the initial infraction has to be considered if deciding what adjusted score to give. In general, cases where there is MI by both sides, and then the auction goes completely astray ("off into the weeds" as we say), are among the toughest to rule. I quite sympathize with artificial scores in such cases, and I'd be tempted by avg-minus to both sides. (OK, David, I know this is wrong, but it is practical.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 30 01:44:57 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3TFiQC20842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:44:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3TFiLH20838 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 01:44:21 +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 LAA05463 for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:32:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA29075 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:32:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200204291532.LAA29075@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Ton Kooijman" > This seems to say that just accepting the present TD-decision as the final > one is not a right development. In the ACBL, alas, it would seem so. > Educating TD's could help, And it's certainly hard to oppose this! Except, of course, by those who have to do the work. But if there are better decisions made in the first place, the overall work should decrease in the long run. > but adding > advisors with bridge knowledge to the TD could also be a solution. Again it is hard to see how anyone could oppose this, but the TD's need to be competent enough to know what questions to ask the advisers. Quite likely that is less of a problem in some places than in the ACBL. I don't think there are any "instant solutions," but there are clear ways to move in the right direction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 30 03:32:00 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3THVIr20917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 03:31:18 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3THVCH20913 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 03:31:13 +1000 (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 172Eo8-000Lm6-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:19:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 13:50:13 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 References: <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij> In-Reply-To: <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.01 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman writes >Do you know that we had cases in recent EBL-events in which the TD made a >weighted score including 4 possible results, all getting a percentage of >expectance and suggesting a precision which is ridiculous? I even have the >experience that percentages were changed to get a result which is closer to >average plus. I see I did not answer this bit because of surprise at the rest of the post. I did not know that in recent EBL events the TDs did their job properly so as to produce an adequately fair result. However, I am not surprised: the application of the Laws to the game of bridge should go forward, and I would expect EBL TDs to be foremost in this forward movement. I am pleased. To suggest that we permit as an alternative a method not allowed by the Laws, which is less fair, which will increase the number of appeals, but apparently has the one benefit of making life easier for the TD seems a backward step. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 30 09:54:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3TNrQq21082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:53:26 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3TNrKH21078 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:53:21 +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 g3TNg3x06519 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:42:04 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:40:34 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto NABC Appeal 49 References: <00b101c1eeb3$15039ec0$6bdff1c3@tkooij> 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 >Ton Kooijman writes > >>Do you know that we had cases in recent EBL-events in which the TD made a >>weighted score including 4 possible results, all getting a percentage of >>expectance and suggesting a precision which is ridiculous? I even have the >>experience that percentages were changed to get a result which is closer to >>average plus. > > I see I did not answer this bit because of surprise at the rest of the >post. > > I did not know that in recent EBL events the TDs did their job >properly so as to produce an adequately fair result. However, I am not >surprised: the application of the Laws to the game of bridge should go >forward, and I would expect EBL TDs to be foremost in this forward >movement. I am pleased. > > To suggest that we permit as an alternative a method not allowed by >the Laws, which is less fair, which will increase the number of appeals, >but apparently has the one benefit of making life easier for the TD >seems a backward step. > I consider a 5 weighted score adjustment for the NO's to be entirely routine, and don't understand what the problem is - unless the TD's are incompetent, or the SO can't be arsed to train them to use L12C3 reliably. Hmm. That should upset most of the rest of the world. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 30 09:59:36 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3TNxR221094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:59:27 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3TNxMH21090 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 09:59:22 +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 g3TNm6x06545 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:48:06 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:46:19 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis References: <200204291532.LAA29075@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200204291532.LAA29075@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 <200204291532.LAA29075@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Ton Kooijman" >> This seems to say that just accepting the present TD-decision as the final >> one is not a right development. > >In the ACBL, alas, it would seem so. > >> Educating TD's could help, > >And it's certainly hard to oppose this! Except, of course, by those >who have to do the work. But if there are better decisions made in >the first place, the overall work should decrease in the long run. > >> but adding >> advisors with bridge knowledge to the TD could also be a solution. > A competent TD doesn't need an advisor. He *decides* who he talks to. Well I do, and despite all the sniping, I'm competent. When I consult *I* decide who to talk to and it don't need be, and frequently isn't, another TD. I've been known to consult with Wendy when it was appropriate. (in regard to a Wendy coup - was she in the room?) cheers john >Again it is hard to see how anyone could oppose this, but the TD's need >to be competent enough to know what questions to ask the advisers. >Quite likely that is less of a problem in some places than in the >ACBL. > >I don't think there are any "instant solutions," but there are clear >ways to move in the right direction. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Apr 30 10:02:54 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3U02nR21110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:02:49 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mozart.asimere.com (mozart.asimere.com [62.49.206.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3U02hH21106 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:02:43 +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 g3TNpRx06549 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:51:27 +0100 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 00:49:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020429145558.00a895d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020429145558.00a895d0@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 <5.1.0.14.0.20020429145558.00a895d0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, Alain Gottcheiner writes >Dear blmlists, > >Here is a case where the notion of "cutting the link" between infraction >and damage had to be interpreted. >I would very much like to read your views about it. > >Club tournament, matchpoints. West is a promising player, but quite >unexperimented. The other three are competent and know eachother well. > > N S > > --- Qxxx > xx Axx > A10xxx Kx > AK10xxx Qxxx > >NS play variable notrumps. East knows this, but West doesn't. NS didn't >pre-alert it (which they should have done), and East didn't care to tell >his partner. > >South opens a mini-NT. West bids 2C, intended as Landy. EW do play Landy vs >the Belgian standard 15-17 NT, but they didn't discuss what to play vs weak >NT, let alone mini-NT. >East doesn't alert, perhaps because he doesn't think Landy applies there >without discussing it, perhaps influenced by his holding 8 major cards and >short clubs. >North bids 2NT. > >If 2C was Landy, 2NT is a transfer to clubs (Rubensohl) >If 2C was natural, 2NT is more or less undiscussed (Rubensohl would mean >2NT is a cue, but not really useful since a double would be for T/O). >The truth is, nobody plays a natural 2C in Brussels, and it's IOTTMCO you'd >rather protect yourself and ask. But do you have to ? >After considerable trance, not wanting to ask about a non-alerted bid, not >knowing what 2NT would mean over a natural NT, South decides to pass, quite >unsuccessfully. >North 'knew' 2C was Landy and reacted according to his system. > >My questions are : >a) should the TD assume that EW play Landy, because they play it vs other >forms of NT openings, and there is no hint at any contrary agreement here ? >Or is the right answer 'undiscussed' ? >If i'Landy' is the answer, there is MI. If not, please skip b) and c) >b) did South do enough to protect himself ? >c) was South's pass such an absurdity that the link between the MI >(non-alert) and the result is cut ? >d) should East have alerted, if only to stammer 'well, perhaps it' a Landy, >but really I'm not so sure, since we didn't discuss it' ? And what would >then have been your ruling ? >e) What would your ruling be if South had asked East, and East had answered >'undiscussed' ? > >Thank you for your advice. > They all deserve each other. Result stands. An unalerted 2C where the whole "world" plays it as conventional requires you to protect yourself. cheers john > Alain. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 30 12:21:03 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3U2JJD21182 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:19:19 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3U2JDH21178 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 12:19:14 +1000 (EST) Received: from [80.225.44.52] (helo=dodona) by mk-smarthost-3.mail.uk.tiscali.com with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 172Mxj-000Ajx-00; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 03:01:52 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c1efeb$f7be9560$342ce150@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Gordon Rainsford" Cc: References: <200204281303.JAA27321@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3CCC849D.4090802@gordonrainsford.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Rules Query - Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 02:56:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Rules Query - > David Stevenson wrote: > > > A. L. Edwards writes > > > > > >>I promise not to try this again untill I check with my > >>sister. :-) > >> > > > > This seems a good rule for a number of people! > > > > > > Including some who are Only Children. > "For there is no friend like a sister In calm or stormy weather, To cheer one on the tedious way, To fetch one if one goes astray, To lift one if one totters down To strengthen while one stands." (Christina Rossetti) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 30 13:24:56 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3U3OV421229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:24:31 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3U3OQH21225 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:24:26 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA23153 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:25:47 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:09:38 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:10:16 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/04/2002 01:09:31 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: [snip] > the worst feature I have found in >working with ACBL personalities in ACs is that a few of >them enter into debates with players across the committee >table; I believe strongly that the duty of the AC member >is to *listen* and the member's contribution should be to >ask questions, listen to answers, gather information, form >a view as to what is credible (and what has been added >to the 'facts' in the interim between ruling and hearing). >Of course there are many of them who do just that, but >it takes only one member not under control to damage >the process, and I can assure you it is galling when I am >seeking to draw out the player with a subtle question, to >lose the point because another committee member jumps >headlong into a confrontation with the player about >something said. [snip] In a case where I was the appellant, I found it galling when the Australian international chair of the AC lectured the defendant on the heresy of alerting her own bid. Personal relationships were also strained for a while, since the defendant plus a mutual friend blamed me for the 3vp PP the AC inflicted. (In the original ruling, the TD had preferred merely to mildly note that alerting your own bid was not appropriate procedure.) 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 Apr 30 14:35:11 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3U4YgD21283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:34:42 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3U4YSH21279 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:34:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA05121 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:36:06 +1000 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:19:57 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Toronto Appeals Analysis To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:22:06 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 30/04/2002 02:19:50 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>What surprised me was that I found not a single case where an AC >>clearly worsened the director ruling. Even in the four cases I judged >>too close to call the expert panel rated the AC ruling higher than >>they rated the table ruling. While there is surely room for >>improvement in the ACs, it seems that in terms of quality of rulings >>they are doing substantially more good than harm. >> >>-- >>Adam Wildavsky > > >Well done sir, thank you very much. Without some analysis no improvement but >just suppositions. >This seems to say that just accepting the present TD-decision as the final >one is not a right development. It not necessarily means that we need an >appeal procedure as we have it now. Educating TD's could help, but adding >advisors with bridge knowledge to the TD could also be a solution. >Personally I think that to be the direction in which we need to go. Because >I prefer one and only one decisison. > >ton Australian directing culture is at the antipodes to the ACBL. In both national events and local events I have been impressed with the consistent high standard of Australian TDs. As a result, in local events, the Oz culture is to accept the TD's ruling, and ACs are blue-moonish. Even in bridge-lawyer infected national events ACs usually uphold the TD's ruling. In the rare cases where ACs differ, my view is that the majority of the differences subtract value from the original TD's ruling. I therefore support ton's suggestion that ACs be abolished in their present form (at least in Australia). Instead, the replacement could be Peer Review Committees to educate the rare less-than-competent TDs. 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 Apr 30 15:18:25 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3U5I8l21326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:18:08 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3U5I4H21322 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:18:04 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 31486 invoked by uid 504); 30 Apr 2002 05:06:19 -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 7.851496 secs); 30 Apr 2002 05:06:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.21.247) by 0 with SMTP; 30 Apr 2002 05:06:11 -0000 Message-ID: <002d01c1f003$fe3467e0$f715b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020429145558.00a895d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3CCD53B9.1040404@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 17:00:44 +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: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 2:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link > Hello Alain, > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > Dear blmlists, > > > > Here is a case where the notion of "cutting the link" between infraction > > and damage had to be interpreted. > > I would very much like to read your views about it. > > > > Club tournament, matchpoints. West is a promising player, but quite > > unexperimented. The other three are competent and know eachother well. > > > nice lapsus linguae - inexperienced I suppose you mean. > Or perhaps not. > > > > > N S > > > > --- Qxxx > > xx Axx > > A10xxx Kx > > AK10xxx Qxxx > > > > NS play variable notrumps. East knows this, but West doesn't. NS didn't > > pre-alert it (which they should have done), and East didn't care to tell > > his partner. > > > > South opens a mini-NT. West bids 2C, intended as Landy. EW do play Landy > > vs the Belgian standard 15-17 NT, but they didn't discuss what to play > > vs weak NT, let alone mini-NT. > > > Intended as Landy is the operative word. "I intended this bid as Landy" is not the same as saying "We have an agreement that this bid is Landy". > Since they cannot prove > otherwise, the TD must really assume that 2C IS Landy. There is plenty of evidence that might be used to show that 2c is not Landy. "Oh I didn't know you were playing mini-nt" "We have no agreement over mini-nt" "I would not have bid 2c intending it as Landy had I known that" IMO this would be a proof. > Otherwise there is no way of playing this game anymore. > > > > East doesn't alert, perhaps because he doesn't think Landy applies there > > without discussing it, perhaps influenced by his holding 8 major cards > > and short clubs. > > North bids 2NT. > > > > If 2C was Landy, 2NT is a transfer to clubs (Rubensohl) > > If 2C was natural, 2NT is more or less undiscussed (Rubensohl would mean > > 2NT is a cue, but not really useful since a double would be for T/O). > > The truth is, nobody plays a natural 2C in Brussels, and it's IOTTMCO > > you'd rather protect yourself and ask. But do you have to ? > > After considerable trance, not wanting to ask about a non-alerted bid, > > not knowing what 2NT would mean over a natural NT, South decides to > > pass, quite unsuccessfully. > > North 'knew' 2C was Landy and reacted according to his system. > > > > My questions are : > > a) should the TD assume that EW play Landy, because they play it vs > > other forms of NT openings, and there is no hint at any contrary > > agreement here ? Or is the right answer 'undiscussed' ? > > > Assume Landy. > The fact that N did not alert (he should have done in Belgium), W did > not ask, EW did not know how if Landy applied and so on and so on, > only makes the case more difficult. If after the ruling EW are > damaged because of the non-alert of the 1NT, then we deal with that > afterwards. That is the first infraction deal with that first I say. > > > > If i'Landy' is the answer, there is MI. If not, please skip b) and c) > > b) did South do enough to protect himself ? > > > South did not ask about an unalerted bid, which is normally alerted. > Since in his opinion, the meaning of that bid influences greatly the > meaning of his partner's 2NT, I'd say - no, he did not do enough to > protect himself. > > > > c) was South's pass such an absurdity that the link between the MI > > (non-alert) and the result is cut ? > > > Given that 2Cl was not alerted, thus natural, thus 2NT natural, pass > is not an absurdity. IMVHO. > > > > d) should East have alerted, if only to stammer 'well, perhaps it' a > > Landy, but really I'm not so sure, since we didn't discuss it' ? And > > what would then have been your ruling ? > > > Since we assume that 2C is Landy, East should have alerted. > I don't believe East should alert unless EW have a partnership agreement to play Landy over what he knows to be a mini-1NT. > > > e) What would your ruling be if South had asked East, and East had > > answered 'undiscussed' ? > > > > > I would not like it - North's next bid has a meaning that is greatly > influenced by the meaning of 2Cl - he should be given one definite answer. > > I would rule that NS are damaged by the non-alert of 2Cl, and EW are > damaged by the non-alert of 1NT. > Since no sensible result can be obtained, I'd give an ArtAS. > I'd vote Av- for NS, who started the whole thing, and Av for EW, > probably more if they can show that 2Cl over mini-no-trump is not > Landy. But since E knew NS's NT range, he should have said something > at the beginning of the table. Really. East's job is not to protect his partner from the opponents' infraction. If he thought of it then i wouldn't object to him stating that fact or asking a question - 'Are you still playing mini-nt?' but i wouldn't crime him for not stating. A million other things could be on his mind. > > > > Thank you for your advice. > > > > Alain. > > 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/ > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 30 19:45:31 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3U9iq821414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:44:52 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from riker.skynet.be (riker.skynet.be [195.238.3.132]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3U9ikH21410 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 19:44:47 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-46410.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.53.74]) by riker.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g3U9X3i02870 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:33:03 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CCE6513.8000604@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:34:11 +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] cutting the link References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020429145558.00a895d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3CCD53B9.1040404@village.uunet.be> <002d01c1f003$fe3467e0$f715b9d2@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: > ----- Original Message ----- >> >>Intended as Landy is the operative word. >> > > "I intended this bid as Landy" is not the same as saying "We have an > agreement that this bid is Landy". > Well, as a TD, I have to assume that the latter is the case if the player states the former (or has the cards to show this intent). > >>Since they cannot prove >>otherwise, the TD must really assume that 2C IS Landy. >> > > There is plenty of evidence that might be used to show that 2c is not Landy. > > "Oh I didn't know you were playing mini-nt" > "We have no agreement over mini-nt" > "I would not have bid 2c intending it as Landy had I known that" > > IMO this would be a proof. > IMO too, but that was not in the original write-up. East realized it was mini-NT, and he does not play Landy over mini-NT, but West not only did not realize it was mini, but also did not state he would not have bid 2Cl had he known. But I agree that it would be evidence (DWS has taught me not to use proof in these sentences). > >>Otherwise there is no way of playing this game anymore. >> >> >> >>>East doesn't alert, perhaps because he doesn't think Landy applies there >>>without discussing it, perhaps influenced by his holding 8 major cards >>>and short clubs. >>>North bids 2NT. >>> >>>If 2C was Landy, 2NT is a transfer to clubs (Rubensohl) >>>If 2C was natural, 2NT is more or less undiscussed (Rubensohl would mean >>>2NT is a cue, but not really useful since a double would be for T/O). >>>The truth is, nobody plays a natural 2C in Brussels, and it's IOTTMCO >>>you'd rather protect yourself and ask. But do you have to ? >>>After considerable trance, not wanting to ask about a non-alerted bid, >>>not knowing what 2NT would mean over a natural NT, South decides to >>>pass, quite unsuccessfully. >>>North 'knew' 2C was Landy and reacted according to his system. >>> >>>My questions are : >>>a) should the TD assume that EW play Landy, because they play it vs >>>other forms of NT openings, and there is no hint at any contrary >>>agreement here ? Or is the right answer 'undiscussed' ? >>> >> >>Assume Landy. >>The fact that N did not alert (he should have done in Belgium), W did >>not ask, EW did not know how if Landy applied and so on and so on, >>only makes the case more difficult. If after the ruling EW are >>damaged because of the non-alert of the 1NT, then we deal with that >>afterwards. >> > > That is the first infraction deal with that first I say. > Yes, but EW are not damaged (yet). They will only be damaged if we have to rule against them for misexplaning 2Cl. Only then can we rule on the first offense. If you rule on the first offense first, you have to say - no damage. > >> >>>If i'Landy' is the answer, there is MI. If not, please skip b) and c) >>>b) did South do enough to protect himself ? >>> >> >>South did not ask about an unalerted bid, which is normally alerted. >>Since in his opinion, the meaning of that bid influences greatly the >>meaning of his partner's 2NT, I'd say - no, he did not do enough to >>protect himself. >> >> >> >>>c) was South's pass such an absurdity that the link between the MI >>>(non-alert) and the result is cut ? >>> >> >>Given that 2Cl was not alerted, thus natural, thus 2NT natural, pass >>is not an absurdity. IMVHO. >> >> >> >>>d) should East have alerted, if only to stammer 'well, perhaps it' a >>>Landy, but really I'm not so sure, since we didn't discuss it' ? And >>>what would then have been your ruling ? >>> >> >>Since we assume that 2C is Landy, East should have alerted. >> >> > > I don't believe East should alert unless EW have a partnership agreement to > play Landy over what he knows to be a mini-1NT. > Your sentence is exactly the same as mine. If 2Cl is Landy, it should have been alerted. > >>>e) What would your ruling be if South had asked East, and East had >>>answered 'undiscussed' ? >>> >>> >> >>I would not like it - North's next bid has a meaning that is greatly >>influenced by the meaning of 2Cl - he should be given one definite answer. >> >>I would rule that NS are damaged by the non-alert of 2Cl, and EW are >>damaged by the non-alert of 1NT. >>Since no sensible result can be obtained, I'd give an ArtAS. >>I'd vote Av- for NS, who started the whole thing, and Av for EW, >>probably more if they can show that 2Cl over mini-no-trump is not >>Landy. But since E knew NS's NT range, he should have said something >>at the beginning of the table. >> > > Really. East's job is not to protect his partner from the opponents' > infraction. If he thought of it then i wouldn't object to him stating that > fact or asking a question - 'Are you still playing mini-nt?' but i wouldn't > crime him for not stating. A million other things could be on his mind. > I'm not saying "during the game", I'm saying - "before the game". East knew NS method's, and could have said something to West before the round started. Since he did not, we must assume that EW are playing the same methods over the mini-NT as over a normal one. At least that is the standard in Antwerp, I don't know if it is in Brussels, but I assume so. Let me spell out what my point of view exactly is: - EW are playing Landy, certainly over 15-17; - the standard (I assume) is to play the same defence over all ranges of NT, unless specifically stated by the partnership; - E knew about the mini-NT, and he did not tell his partner that there should be a different defence against it; - so EW are playing Landy in this situation; - so E is wrong in not alerting. > >> >>>Thank you for your advice. >>> >>> Alain. >>> >>> > > Wayne > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Apr 30 20:51:21 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3UAowK21458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:50:58 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3UAoqH21454 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:50:53 +1000 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g3UAd9T16350 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:39:09 +0100 (BST) X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:39 +0100 (BST) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link 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: <3CCE6513.8000604@village.uunet.be> > > "I intended this bid as Landy" is not the same as saying "We have an > > agreement that this bid is Landy". > > Well, as a TD, I have to assume that the latter is the case if the > player states the former (or has the cards to show this intent). I agree that this would be the case (absent some evidence to the contrary) in a normal situation. But in a normal situation the "mini" would have been pre-alerted and EW would have had a chance to confirm their agreed defence to it. So in this instance I would require very little evidence (a mere statement from East would suffice) to convince me that EW do not play Landy over a mini. 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 Apr 30 21:20:18 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3UBK6o21482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:20:06 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 g3UBK1H21477 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:20:01 +1000 (EST) Received: (qmail 1937 invoked by uid 504); 30 Apr 2002 11:08:16 -0000 Received: from cascade@infogen.net.nz by mail.morenet.net.nz by uid 501 with qmail-scanner-1.10 (sophie: 2.9/3.55. . Clear:0. Processed in 1.021996 secs); 30 Apr 2002 11:08:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO laptop) (210.185.24.74) by 0 with SMTP; 30 Apr 2002 11:08:15 -0000 Message-ID: <004d01c1f036$91b5de40$4a18b9d2@laptop> Reply-To: "Wayne Burrows" From: "Wayne Burrows" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:02:49 +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: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] cutting the link > In-Reply-To: <3CCE6513.8000604@village.uunet.be> > > > "I intended this bid as Landy" is not the same as saying "We have an > > > agreement that this bid is Landy". > > > > Well, as a TD, I have to assume that the latter is the case if the > > player states the former (or has the cards to show this intent). > > I agree that this would be the case (absent some evidence to the contrary) > in a normal situation. But in a normal situation the "mini" would have > been pre-alerted and EW would have had a chance to confirm their agreed > defence to it. So in this instance I would require very little evidence > (a mere statement from East would suffice) to convince me that EW do not > play Landy over a mini. Yes in fact the very fact that East did not alert is evidence that he was not sure that they had an 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 Tue Apr 30 22:12:15 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3UCBhA21521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:11:43 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from durendal.skynet.be (durendal.skynet.be [195.238.3.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3UCBXH21514 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:11:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47003.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.155]) by durendal.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g3UBxnq27382 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 13:59:49 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CCE877B.7020000@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:00:59 +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] cutting the link 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: <3CCE6513.8000604@village.uunet.be> > >>>"I intended this bid as Landy" is not the same as saying "We have an >>>agreement that this bid is Landy". >>> >>Well, as a TD, I have to assume that the latter is the case if the >>player states the former (or has the cards to show this intent). >> > > I agree that this would be the case (absent some evidence to the contrary) > in a normal situation. But in a normal situation the "mini" would have > been pre-alerted and EW would have had a chance to confirm their agreed > defence to it. So in this instance I would require very little evidence > (a mere statement from East would suffice) to convince me that EW do not > play Landy over a mini. > This is a very small piece under discussion, Tim. Of course the TD will have the decision to make. However, the way Alain told it, West had no idea that there is reason not to play Landy over a mini-NT, while East knew full well that NS were playing mini. So I believe that the instance you mention is not the case. Although your ruling would be correct under the circumstances that you describe. > 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 Apr 30 22:13:19 2002 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id g3UCDEm21573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:13:14 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from picard.skynet.be (picard.skynet.be [195.238.3.131]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id g3UCD7H21564 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 22:13:07 +1000 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (adsl-47003.turboline.skynet.be [217.136.55.155]) by picard.skynet.be (8.11.6/8.11.6/Skynet-OUT-2.19) with ESMTP id g3UC18L05454 for ; Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:01:08 +0200 (MET DST) (envelope-from ) Message-ID: <3CCE87CA.2020102@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:02:18 +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] cutting the link References: <004d01c1f036$91b5de40$4a18b9d2@laptop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: >> > > Yes in fact the very fact that East did not alert is evidence that he was > not sure that they had an agreement. > Not if you know the players in contention. Not alerting in Belgian quite often simply means that "of course everyone knows this is Landy". > 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/ > > -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/